Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order For Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Books

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate with regard to the provision of books in schools.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend has received no representations arising directly from HMI's report. However, since taking office he has discussed the supply of books for schools with the local authority associations.

Mr. Lofthouse: The Minister will be aware that the recent HMI report indicated that half the primary school lessons have been affected by the shortage of books. Is that not extremely serious, and what action has she taken since the publication of the report to rectify the matter?

Mrs. Rumbold: The Government need no convincing that spending on books is a priority, and we hope that our proposals for local authority spending in 1987–88 —which imply an increase of some 14 per cent. in planned expenditure on education—will resolve this matter.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the provision of books is not necessarily the key necessity for effective education, otherwise one would have difficulty explaining the paltry results of the profligate ILEA? A perhaps more important part of the HMI report was the inadequacy with which children's educational needs were shown to be identified, together with the lack of management of resources.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly true that inadequate capitation allowances were not considered to be the main factor contributing to poor provision. It was thought much more significant that poor management of resources and inadequate identification of pupils' needs by teachers were the main elements.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my hon. Friend accept that many parents are extremely concerned about the kind of books currently available in some schools? I refer in

particular to sex education books such as "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", "Taught not Caught" and "Make it Happy". Will my hon. Friend bring to the attention of the inspectorate the concern felt by parents throughout the country that some extremely unfortunate books that may corrupt our young children are now available in schools and libraries?

Mrs. Rumbold: Of course we condemn the use of irresponsible books and unsuitable literature in our schools. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend is taking action in respect of one of the authorities by sending in the inspectorate to see exactly what is happening.

Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that the printing of short runs of books is wholly uneconomical as the bulk of capital expenditure takes place at the initial stage of the printing process? I suggest that she goes back to school and gets her sums right before depriving our children of essential facilities.

Mrs. Rumbold: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the local authorities have capitation allowances and sort out different allocations for individual schools. They look at both books and equipment, and it is their responsibility to look into that at the beginning of each financial year.

Higher Education

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about resources for higher education.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I receive a lot of representations. For local authority higher education I have already announced an increase in funding of £54 million next year. I hope to be able to make an announcement about university funding quite soon.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State aware that. despite his optimistic speech last month about the future of university places, many vice-chancellors see nothing facing them but ever-increasing deficits, cuts in services, cuts in staff and possible cuts in departments? Will he comment on the confidential report published in some of yesterday's newspapers— based on information from the Treasury and his own Department — which indicated that the crisis facing the universities was even worse than had been publicly acknowledged so far?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman knows that in the cycle of funding each year polytechnics and colleges of further education are dealt with first. I announced a substantial increase of 8 per cent. for those. I hope to be able to announce the position for universities quite soon. I trust that they will not be too disappointed.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the funding of higher education cannot be separated from the broad education budget? Within that context, will he do all he can to see that the teachers' pay queries are settled at an early date, with a fair result for them? Will he also ensure that the children are put first in those negotiations, that they get a fair deal, and that schools are not disrupted?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide of the question.

Mr. Freud: In fighting for extra money for that important priority, will the Secretary of State ensure that access is widened so that those with genuine ability, even if they do not conform to the identikit picture of a student, have a chance of access to higher education?

Mr. Baker: I want to increase the participation rates of 16 to 18-year-olds. A total of 26 per cent. of those taking further education courses are 16 to 18-year olds. We expect the figure to go to 28 per cent. I want more young people to stay on at school until they are 18 and to go on to colleges, polytechnics and universities. Since 1979 there has been an increase of 140,000 in the number of full-time and part-time home students. That increase is one of which we can all be proud.

Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his positive approach to the future of higher education is welcome and that Conservative Members give him their full support in his endeavour to associate increased funding for higher education with greater selectivity and a better managerial approach?

Mr. Baker: I welcome my hon. Friend's support. I appreciate the importance of the universities, but I am always anxious to point out the equal importance of polytechnics. We should take pride in the fact that in 1986 the number of first-class degrees awarded in polytechnics is up by 20 per cent.

Mr. Radice: Does the Secretary of State not accept that the message of the report of the Government's own accounting advisers is that continual cuts in funding since 1981 are bringing many universities to the verge of bankruptcy? Is it not time that the Secretary of State told the Prime Minister that there must be a U-turn in policy? To maintain standards, the Government must provide universities with more resources.

Mr. Baker: Over the past few years, changes had to be made in universities. I think that all hon. Members would agree with that. A significant change in attitudes and in giving priorities to some subjects over others is pure gain. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the announcement that I hope to make quite soon. I think that he will not be too disappointed.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what efforts the universities are making to attract outside funding from industry? Is the sum considerable, is it rising, or is it level?

Mr. Baker: I have been charged today in the columns of The Times with the fact that I suggested that universities were ivory towers and did not seek support from the private sector. The fact that I said that obviously hit a raw nerve. There has been an increase in private funding for universities over the past few years, and we all welcome that. The amount of private money that goes into universities amounts to just £47 million a year, which is well under 1 per cent. of their costs, and compares unfavourably with practices in America, Germany and France.

School Buildings

Mr. Terry Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate with regard to the standard of maintenance of school buildings.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate with regard to the standard of maintenance of school buildings.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations specifically on HMI's findings, but has discussed the repair and maintenance of schools in meetings with the local authority associations and in the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Davis: But how many representations does the Secretary of State need? Is it not enough to receive a report from Her Majesty's inspectors, who say that one fifth of all lessons in primary and secondary school are being adversely affected by being held in unsuitable and unsatisfactory accommodation, that the situation is getting worse, and that that is putting an unfair burden on teachers such as the staff at Gossey Lane school in Birmingham, who told me that they take a calculated risk of a child being seriously injured whenever they take a PE class in inadequate accommodation? In the face of such facts, in not the Minister's complacency verging on criminal negligence?

Mr. Dunn: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, who has used unusually intemperate language in the House today, that I share the concern expressed by HMI, but I remind Opposition Members that the poor physical state of many school buildings has not suddenly occurred in the past 10 days. It is not a new event. It springs from the gradual effects of 20 years of neglect, and Opposition parties must take their fair share of responsibility for the present position.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that capital allocations to the county of Cumbria are so low that the education service in parts of the county is now at the point of collapse? Is he aware that buildings are leaking, teachers are complaining, and that parents resent the Government and object to the cuts? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that secondary organisation in my constituency is being threatened by the inadequacy of buildings? Why does he not do something? Why does the Secretary of State not win an argument in Cabinet and get some more money for education so that we can have a decent system throughout the country, particularly in my constituency?

Mr. Dunn: We are concerned here with good housekeeping and planned maintenance programmes. Some local education authorities chose in the past not to follow such programmes, and I am sorry to say that the authorities which chose not do so are now reaping the consequences of their past inactivity.

Mr. Allan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that some rather wasteful administrative procedures are in use for the maintenance of school buildings? Does he agree, for example, that when a boy or girl kicks a football through a window, if the head teacher were allowed to send a caretaker to the DIY shop and get him to mend the window on the spot, rather than have to wait for the arrival of the accredited team of window repairers from the local education authority offices, our schools would be better maintained, at appreciably lower costs?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend's question only reinforces my view that we were entirely right to include in the Education Bill that has jut left the House a degree of local financial management. Of course, local education authorities are free to build upon that and delegate much more than we require of them in law.

Mr. Lilley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fine example set by the parents and staff of St. George's school, Harpenden in that respect, as they are half way through a five-year voluntary programme of repainting their own school? Did my hon. Friend read the article in The Times Educational Supplement praising them for that and saying that as well as releasing resources for a lower pupil-teacher ratio and better equipment, it had a marvellous impact on morale and the involvement of parents in the school?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend should extend to the parents of children at the school that he mentioned our thanks for being so forward looking and enterprising in what they have done. If the school cares to invite me to visit it, I shall have great pleasure in accepting such an invitation.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Minister implying that if we reorganised the schools and had the caretaker telling the man next door to do repairs, suddenly the crumbling buildings — the Minister's predecessor said that in Sheffield they were "crummy", for instance — would come to life and be done up properly? Is it not a fact that the Government do not provide enough money to make the schools habitable? If the money is not forthcoming, the half million unemployed building workers who are ready to do the work will not be able to do it? Are not the Government helping private education while the schools of 90 per cent. of our children are going to ruin?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman occupies his own special time warp and does not understand what is happening in the education service. All our policies are designed to make sure that we get value for money from our schools. I dare say that because of that he supports our policy on local financial management.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty about some of the priorities on repairs and maintenance can quite often mean that a school is overlooked? In my constituency the Millbrook comprehensive school has been overlooked for several years. The outbuildings are made of wood and are rotting. There are Acrows supporting the beams in the classrooms and children have to walk around them to be taught. Perhaps that is one case my hon. Friend will examine to see whether he can bring that school back into an active programme of repair and maintenance.

Mr. Dunn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making such effective representations on behalf of his constituents. If he cares to write to me about the case I shall inquire into it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister tell us of any local authority that he has visited that has not pressed him for more resources to repair existing schools? Can he tell us of any local authority that he has visited that is not desperate to replace old schools with new ones? Is it not obscene that when the Government get a little bit of extra money they spend it on city technology colleges rather than on desperately needed repairs to and replacement of

schools? Surely the Government ought to be putting resources into state schools and not adopting this D-I-Y approach to school building.

Mr. Dunn: We spend over £500 million a year on capital projects and many millions more on repair and maintenance. I object to the hon. Member implying that all the faults in our school stock have arisen in recent months. They have not. I recently visited schools where problems have existed for more than two decades. Those problems did not arise recently.

General Certificate of Secondary Education

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with progress towards the introduction of the general certificate of secondary education; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress in introducing the general certificate of secondary education.

Mrs. Rumbold: In the past few weeks some 600,000 pupils have started courses leading to the GCSE. The measures that my right hon. Friend anounced on 10 June have allowed all local authorities to increase expenditure on books and equipment for the GCSE. In addition, further training for the GCSE will be supported by a programme of £15 million in the financial year 1987–88 under the new in-service training arrangements from 1 April 1987.

Mr. Proctor: How much of the funding has gone to the county of Essex?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that this year the county of Essex has Government-supported expenditure of £620,000. For 1987 and 1988 it will receive Government support of £664,000.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that some pupils are having to be sent home from classes because of the failure of local education authorities and examining boards to reach agreement about payments for cover for teachers who take time off for training? That includes training for examiners and moderators for the GCSE. Will my hon. Friend encourage local education authorities arid boards to reach an agreement that will prevent this happening in future?

Mrs. Rumbold: As my hon. Friend may be aware, the recent Scott judgment in the courts made it clear that covering for absent colleagues is a professional obligation on teachers. For that reason, it is disheartening to know that teachers are refusing to fulfil that obligation. That is probably further proof that we need clearly defined and properly enforceable contracts for teachers.

Mr. Freud: What advice will the Minister give to an hon. Member who receives a letter from a schoolmaster saying that the examining board has not sent the syllabus and thus cannot teach pupils for the GCSE?

Mrs. Rumbold: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have details, I shall be happy to take the matter up.

Mr. Pawsey: I acknowledge that the GCSE is the best prepared examination ever and that some £80 million has been made available for its inception, but will my hon.


Friend none the less accept that concern is being expressed by teachers about the staffing implications of the new examination? Will she assure the House that she is keeping this aspect under review?

Mrs. Rumbold: We are of course monitoring the introduction of the GCSE examination very carefully, but I remind my hon. Friend that this new examination has been widely welcomed and that it was important that we should get it off to a good start. Most teachers have been extremely co-operative and very anxious to ensure that the examination becomes a success.

University Grants Committee

Dr. Godman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Association of University Teachers about the future funding of the University Grants Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the AUT on 24 July, when we discussed various aspects of university funding and other matters.

Dr. Godman: Is the Minister aware of the very deep concern of members of the association in Scotland about the threatened closure of highly reputable university departments in Scotland? Is he also aware that this is particularly acute in Strathclyde university, where the very fine departments of mathematics and biochemistry are so threatened? Will the Minister assure the House that Scottish universities will not suffer such dismemberment of departments? Does he not agree that the time has surely arrived for the establishment of a Scottish UGC?

Mr. Walden: In the first place, I think that the hon. Gentleman is dramatising. Secondly, there has been no geographical discrimination against Scotland. Thirdly, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the UGC's selectivity exercise, I can only commend the UGC for the boldness with which that exercise is being pursued.

Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend yet in a position to say anything to the House about the future of Ruskin college? Many people are most anxious to know what is to happen to this most valued institution.

Mr. Walden: I share the concern that has reached me about recent incidents at Ruskin college. For that reason I wrote to the principal of the college asking for his account of events there. I have now received that account. It has not reassured me. I have therefore asked the principal to call to see me next Monday. I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member is against the education of trade unionists. If, on the other hand, that education is to be in the spirit of the intellectual equivalent of the closed shop—and that is what the accusations are about—the taxpayer, who, to a very large extent, funds this college, will expect clear answers to clear questions.

Mr. Dormand: When a person is deemed by a university to be capable of undertaking a first degree course, will he or she be assured of financial assistance either from the university or from the local education authority? If the answer to that question is no, what will be the effect, not only on that person, but on the wellbeing and economic state of the country?

Mr. Walden: I am not at all clear about the point of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is asking his question on the basis of an individual case, I ask him to write to me about it. In general, more people are receiving maintenance grants than ever before.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that Ruskin college has striven very hard to protect two rights: the right of an individual to express his views, and the right of other people to disagree with those views? Does he also accept that the college should not be criticised for trying to maintain fairness between those two fundamental rights, and that no one has the right to object to other people being critical of his views?

Mr. Walden: Ruskin's members are not there as union members or socialists but as teachers and students. Ruskin is not a party school diffusing received opinion.
That comes from this week's New Statesman. I commend the article in question to the hon. Gentleman.

School Governors

Mr. Gerald Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to seek to change the constitution of school governing bodies; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dunn: The Education Bill provides for school governing bodies to be freed from domination by local education authority representatives and, armed with effective powers, to be more broadly representative of parents and the wider community served by the school.

Mr. Howarth: Although the modest changes in the Education Bill are welcome, does my hon. Friend agree that real accountability will come only when parents are given a decisive say, when politicians are given virtually no say and when the boards of governors will be able to manage their entire budgets themselves?

Mr. Dunn: I congratulate my hon. Friend and some others of my hon. Friends on the recent publication of their document, "Save our Schools". I urge hon. Members not to underestimate the substantial powers that the Education Bill will put in the hands of reconstituted governing bodies and all governors and parents, who will serve on them in much larger numbers than hitherto.

Mrs. Dunwoody: May we therefore take it that the Minister will treat seriously the views of governors who do not want their village schools closed? When they are asking for continued education, will he ensure that he supports them in keeping village schools in being?

Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the position regarding village schools quite clear at our recent party conference. The hon. Lady will know that certain legal requirements have to be followed before a local education authority can close a school. I know that she has exercised part of her right in that respect quite recently.

Mr. Haslehurst: I agree with the extent of parental involvement that my hon. Friend has set, but does he agree that, if it is to be effective, parents who go on governing bodies should be adequately trained for the task? Does he agree that there may be a limitation in that some people, because of professional or other duties, will find it difficult to come forward to take up the role?

Mr. Dunn: The question of training school governors applies to all governors, irrespective of their source. We are committed to providing some money for training. Decisions about how training is provided may well rest with local education authorities or organisations such as the Open University. My hon. Friend's point is effective and good.

Mr. Meadoweroft: Is the Minister aware that, in Leeds, and, no doubt, in other Labour-controlled councils, school governing bodies are being packed wth Labour nominees way beyond the proportion of seats that that party occupies in the council? As the proportions of political groups or bodies are now enshrined in legislation, will the Minister introduce legislation to apply the same view to school governing bodies?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman knows that when the Bill receives Royal Assent local education authority domination will cease once and for all. I am fully aware of what is happening in Leeds, Brent, Haringey and elsewhere, where the councils are Labour-controlled. I condemn such domination and the elimination of interests other than those which appear to be solely in the interests of the Labour party.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: When my hon. Friend examines the governorships of city technology colleges, if he meets resistance in the city of Birmingham, would he care to locate one next door in the borough of Solihull?

Mr. Dunn: I welcome any proposal to set up CTCs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that 20 would be the initial target. I hope that, in time, it will be 120, if not many more.

Teachers (Shortage)

Mr. Corbyn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the shortage of teachers of mathematics, sciences and craft, design and technology in schools.

Mr. Corbett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the shortage of teachers of mathematics, sciences and craft, design and technology in schools.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: In January 1986 local authorities in England reported 359 unfilled posts in mathematics, 407 in science and 201 in craft design technology. Although the vacancies amount to only just over 1 per cent. of posts in these subjects, I am nevertheless concerned about the supply. I have taken several measures, including the allocation of £16·5 million next year, in support of in-service training for teachers of these subjects.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State agree that those figures are an indictment of seven years of a Tory Government who pledged themselves to improving the country's economic performance? If they do not provide sufficient science, mathematics and other technological subject teachers, they never can improve our economic performance. What plans does the right hon. Gentleman have to end the process of cuts in universities, polytechnics and teacher training institutes, which is at the root of the problem? Does he agree that in-service training cannot solve the shortage which has been caused by the lack of educational training places for universities and other institutions of higher education?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Member could not have been in the House earlier when I announced confirmation of the increase in polytechnic funding for next year. He should also be aware that I have increased the numbers for initial teacher training in primary and secondary schools by amounts as high as 20 per cent. for the next three years.
I completely reject the suggestion that the shortage of teachers in these subjects is a recent problem—it goes back to the 1940s and 1950s. For a time in the 1940s and 1950s, young boys who were intended for national service were relieved of that duty if they studied these subjects.

Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister aware that a survey of 97 secondary schools in the city of Birmingham showed that about one third of mathematics teaching is done by those who have either weak or no paper qualifications in that subject? Does he accept that this gross shortage denies proper opportunities to thousands of students to acquire vital skills in these subjects? The establishment of the city technology colleges will cream off the better qualified to what are likely to be better-equipped institutions and better-paid jobs. That will make the situation even worse.

Mr. Baker: In the first part of his supplementary the hon. Gentleman made a good point. I agree with him that, although the vacancy rate for such teachers is just under 1 per cent., it does mask the problem that many teachers are not qualified in and trained for teaching these subjects. This is not due to a lack of opportunities. The opportunities are there. This year we have introduced a £1,200 bursary for graduates who want to train in these subjects. I am glad to report that applications for initial teacher training in physics and technology have improved significantly since that announcement.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How much?

Mr. Baker: Applications for teacher training in physics have increased by 9 per cent., and craft and technology applications by about 20 per cent. That is well above the rates we need.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How many in numbers?

Mr. Baker: I will tell the hon. Gentleman the numbers if he wants to know. It is a real increase over last year.

Sir Dudley Smith: I echo a previous supplementary from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of village schools of excellence do not have any particular staffing problems and, in the circumstances, will he think twice before abolishing them?

Mr. Baker: In the last few months, I can assure my hon. Friend that I have visited many village schools with small numbers of children in them — 15, 20 or 30. They provide excellent education. I wish to make it absolutely clear that it is not the Government's intention to close such schools. In many cases they provide an essential ingredient to hold a community together.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to improve the critical situation regarding physics and mathematics teaching is to encourage better links, including financial, between industry and teaching? Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that in Norwich there is already evidence of industrial support for the new city technology colleges? That is good and it is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Baker: I welcome the support of my hon. Friend. Norwich was not on the initial list, but if people come forward in Norwich and want to establish a technology college, I should be happy to look at the application.
Industry links are very important with regard to the teaching of mathematics and physics. Many companies are already helping. Plessey, GEC and BP have given bursaries of one kind or another. Some authorities are approaching their local companies to see whether any executives wish to go back into teaching.

Mr. Radice: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that we will not begin to solve the teacher shortages until there is a long-term deal for the profession? Although I regret the decision of one teachers' union to restart industrial action, is it not the case that the Government's dithering, highlighted in today's press, is adding to the uncertainty? When is the Secretary of State going to come clean and tell the House how the teachers' dispute will be solved?

Mr. Baker: The current position is that the employers and unions are to meet under ACAS in Nottingham on the weekend after next in yet another attempt to resolve the two-year-old dispute. Since the Coventry meeting in July, the Main report for Scotland has been published and the Government are considering its implications, which are exceedingly complex. While all that is taking place, I utterly condemn the action of NAS/UWT in threatening further disruption next week. It is not the Government who will be blamed for the lack of agreement. The parties have not yet reached an agreement.

National Advisory Body (Planning Exercise)

Mr. Nicholas Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education on the National Advisory Body planning exercise 1987–88.

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education on the National Advisory Body planning exercise 1987–88.

Mr. Walden: My right hon. Friend met representatives of the association on 15 October. Among the matters discussed was the National Advisory Body's planning exercise for 1987–88.

Mr. Brown: Will the Minister give an assurance that what appears to be a Government climbdown will be permanent and that the polytechnics will not be put through the same hoops next year?

Mr. Walden: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thinks we have climbed down from. When HMI last looked at this area, it formed the view that there was capacity for more students in the public sector of higher education. We have increased our contribution to the public sector by a factor of almost three times inflation, 8 per cent., and that is in recognition of the excellent performance of the polytechnics and colleges.

Mr. Key: Is it true that Birmingham city council has threatened to sack the director of Birmingham polytechnic if he allows The Times to be purchased for the institution?

When will the Government bring forward proposals to give corporate status to our polytechnics to protect their freedom?

Mr. Walden: I note my hon. Friend's remarks about Birmingham polytechnic. In a speech in Birmingham yesterday I made the point that if there was any evidence of political pressure on polytechnics, the only honourable route for the principals would be robust resistance.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I assisted yesterday at a very interesting interchange between representatives of the labour movement on the question of corporate status for polytechnics, and I listened with great interest to the divergent points of view.

Mr. Sheerman: Does not recent experience show that there must be a better way of planning the development of our polytechnic system? Is the Minister not aware that on 14 October, only a few days ago, the bids put in for capital development for research in technology and science totalled £50 million, yet the Government have indicated that they will give only a measly £5 million? Is that the way to develop research in the polytechnics?

Mr. Walden: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome the extra funding that we have provided for that area. I assure him that many a polytechnic director has welcomed it in conversation with me.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about building and equipment funding, will he please bear in mind that the actual outturn of expenditure was 50 per cent. more, and double what the Government provide, because local authorities supplement it. All that is public money.

Mr. Marlow: As Northamptonshire is an area of high technology, as the population of Northamptonshire are the most intelligent in the country, and as we are underprovided in higher education, will my hon. Friend wave his magic wand and transform our beautiful college into a polytechnic?

Mr. Walden: I rather thought that my hon. Friend would ask that question. The possibility of upgrading colleges and polytechnics is being considered by the National Advisory Body at board level. The matter will then come to committee level, and a recommendation will be made to the Government. No doubt my hon. Friend will energetically promote the interests of his college.

Universities (Funds)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the answer of 8 July, Official Report, column 161, what information he has about the effects on each university of the means used to determine the resources allocated to teaching and research purposes, respectively.

Mr. Walden: The universities most affected by the introduction of the UGC's new resource allocation arrangements were notified by the committee of the main factors leading to an increase or a reduction in their grant relative to the average. Copies of these letters are in the Library.

Mr. Dalyell: What prompted Sir David Hancock and Mr. F. E. R. Butler, the second secretary to the Treasury, to ask their own accounting advisers to make a report on the future of the universities? Why was that necessary?

Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the position of universities is constantly kept under review.

Mr. Forsyth: I welcome my hon. Friend's recent statement about the future of Stirling university being secure. Nevertheless, will he accept that the formula method of funding used by the UGC is prejudicial to small universities such as Stirling and St. Andrew's, which have always had high standards of quality and excellence?

Mr. Walden: I would not question for a moment the standards of excellence of Scottish universities, and I naturally regret the perturbations through which the universities are going but it must be remembered that a number of small universities are perhaps trying to do rather too much in too many departments, and so difficult changes have to be made.

Dr. Bray: Is it not pathetic for the Government to have reduced the Royal Society and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to painstakingly tracing the decline in British basic research? Are the Government aware that by their intransigent attitude to the claims made for science in the universities and research councils they are destroying the industrial future of the country?

Mr. Walden: The Government place enormous importance on basic research. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would remember that in the longer term the ability of this country to carry out the fundamental research to which both he and I attach importance will be conditioned largely by its prosperity as a nation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Maxton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland that it is essential that the teachers in Scotland know the Government's view of the Main committee, and whether they will give the money to finance those proposals before they take a decision on whether they will accept those proposals? Will she make a statement today, making it clear that the Government intend to finance in full the Main proposals in Scotland and the proposals for teachers' pay in England and Wales?

The Prime Minister: The Government are giving the careful consideration to the Main report to which it is entitled. We are also taking a close interest in the talks taking place in England and Wales, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said. We want an outcome that is good for the children and gives them uninterrupted education, and that means a clearly defined contract and a pay structure that attracts and retains teachers of the right quality.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a report in The Sun last week showing that a family of 13 was receiving something approaching £2,000 a week in benefits at the expense of the ratepayers and

taxpayers. Is this not an appalling misappropriation of public funds? Will she give urgent consideration to putting a top limit of, say, £150 a week on what any family can receive in any circumstances from public funds? Will she further make changes in the system so that nobody, whether British citizens or foreign nationals, can receive benefit until they have paid national insurance contributions for at least a year?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that case, and many people were concerned about the vast sums that were being paid out. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is considering the matter, and I shall pass my hon. Friend's comments on to him.

Mr. Hattersley: Why has manufacturing industry, which in the last full year of the Labour Government contributed a £4 billion surplus to the balance of trade, now slumped to a deficit of £4 billion?

The Prime Minister: It has done so because it is riot sufficiently competitive overseas.

Mr. Hattersley: Why does the Prime Minister not admit the truth? Is it not a fact that investment in manufacturing is now lower than it was on the day she was elected? Is that not the direct result of her policies, which have produced in Britain the highest real interest rates in any developed industrialised country?

The Prime Minister: No. The test of an economy is not the rate of investment in one particular aspect of its wealth but the rate of investment and the success of the economy as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman always gets up and offers selective figures. The volume of total fixed investment is at a record level. One million new jobs have been created since 1983. The profitability of industrial and commercial companies is at the highest level since 1964.

Mr. Hattersley: As the Prime Minister reminds us that the real criterion is the performance of the economy as a whole, will she tell us about the performance of the economy as a whole on the balance of trade over the past two months?

The Prime Minister: Again, the right hon. Gentleman has taken two particular months. Exports are running at a record level, including over the past two months.

Mr. Key: On Sunday week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other party leaders will represent us at the annual Cenotaph service. Does my right hon. Friend share my deep distaste at the proposals of the so-called peace movement to substitute white poppies for red poppies? This causes deep offence to the vast majority of people and, incidentally, reduces the income of the Royal British Legion.

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's deep distaste. The Cenotaph service is a national occasion. It brings help and comfort to all our citizens and, I am sure, will continue to do just that.

Mr. Steel: In view of the Prime Minister's personal commitment to the Channel tunnel project, what will be her attitude to the project if British investors fail to come up with the British half of the cash necessary?

The Prime Minister: The decision whether to make the necessary investment is entirely one for British institutions. I have made it perfectly clear that no Government money


will be involved in this project. Nevertheless, France and Britain continue to find it an exciting and challenging project and hope that it will go ahead, but it is for the institutions themselves to make the decision.

Mr. Michael Morris: Does my right hon. Friend recall the time she opened Nene teacher training college—now the Nene college of advanced education—which has the fourth largest number of full-time equivalent higher degree courses? Will she therefore make representations to the National Advisory Body at least to accept a presentation from Nene concerning its future status as a polytechnic?

The Prime Minister: I know my hon. Friend's concern. I am sure that that institution's application will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ashton: With respect to interest rates going up, is the Prime Minister aware that the Library today released figures showing that the mortgage repayments on an average three-bedroomed London semi are £450 a month? When the Conservative party came to office, they were £120 a month. That is nearly 350 per cent. inflation. Why does the right hon. Lady not include house prices in the Government's inflation figures? Why does she fiddle the figures and create a situation in London whereby Camden is allowed to build only nine houses this year instead of the 1,000 it was building before, with the result that young couples cannot get on the housing list?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman refrains from saying that the standard of living is at its highest level ever, and so, too, is the standard of housing, with an extra 1 million houses more than during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. Much more money is being spent on renovation. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, he cannot escape the fact that our housing record is far better than Labour's.

Mr. Maclean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that East Cumbria health authority will have an additional £300,000 to spend this year on direct patient care, money which has become available because of cost-improvement schemes, the success of the excellent new management system, and, of course, a remarkably low level of inflation?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate the health authority, as my hon. Friend has congratulated the Government, on keeping a lower level of inflation. The Health Service is in excellent shape and I wish that more people would recognise that fact. As it is, Labour Members never hesitate to criticise a service which employs 1 million people. It would be as well if we congratulated them on, and thanked them for, their services.

Mr. Michie: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michie: In view of the dramatic increase in violent crime over the past decade, does the Prime Minister accept that reducing the number of weapons rather than arming

the police could avoid and reduce crimes such as the tragic shooting at Ughill near Sheffield? Will the Prime Minister immediately recommend that we have a permanent review committee of the Home Office to recommend on the availability of weapons and arms in Britain?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. The Home Office and, in particular, the chief inspector of police, will keep that matter under permanent review and if there are any changes they will involve that part of the Home Office.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Adley: Reverting to the Channel tunnel, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Advertising Standards Authority requires that advertisements should be "legal, decent, honest and truthful" and that the ASA has now required Flexilink, the opponents of the Channel tunnel, to withdraw its current advertising campaign? Will she deplore with me the disreputable, disgraceful and, indeed, dishonest campaign that has been waged by professional opponents, led by the rather flabby Mr. Sherwood, against the project? Having already confirmed her Government's commitment to it today, does she agree that the City of London has an opportunity to refute the allegation that it is only interested in short-term profits rather than in long-term investments by backing the project?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that the Flexilink advertisements have been withdrawn. I repeat that the French and British Governments hope that the Channel tunnel project will go ahead. It is very challenging, but the decision on who invests what is entirely a matter for the institutions. There will be no Government money. It is a challenging project and the French and British Governments continue to support it.

Mr. Clelland: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clelland: Has the Prime Minister yet had time to read the article in The Observer on Sunday, which contains accusations that she and others lied over the Westland affair? Does she agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have arrived here fairly recently, but "lie" is not a parliamentary word.

Mr. Clelland: Has the Prime Minister yet had time to read the article in The Observer on Sunday? Are the accusations made in it true, and, if so, is that one reason why some civil servants are so relucant to appear before the Select Committee on Defence?

The Prime Minister: I have not read the article. I do not intend to read it. The facts were set out in statements and debates and in the Government's reply to Select Committees. Those are the true facts.

Mr. Sumberg: Is it not ironic that when there were terrorist bombs in Paris last month the French Government looked to us for support, and yet, with


evidence that Syria is behind the Hindawi affair, European Governments are conspicuous by their silence? When will our European partners realise that in relation to terrorism we either stand together or we hang together?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that the European statement on Syria was not stronger. I hope that our European colleagues will consider the matter further, especially in view of the bold statements previously made. For example, in September 1984 the Foreign Affairs Council said:
If one partner suffers a serious terrorist attack involving abuse of diplomatic immunity partners will be ready to consider common action in response.
I hope that our colleagues will ensure that at the next meeting they put what they said then into practice.

Mr. Litherland: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Litherland: Is the Prime Minister aware that last winter many old-age pensioners died from hypothermia? Does she agree that pensioners on supplementary benefit should automatically receive the £5 heating allowance so that so many people do not die from hypothermia this year?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The cost of fuel and light has remained stable, so there will be no change in the heating additions — [Interruption.] However, it ill becomes any Labour Member to criticise this Government, given that expenditure on heating additions has risen to more than £400 million, compared with £90 million in 1978–79. Moreover, accusations of not caring come ill from a party which supported a coal strike designed to deprive pensioners of heat and light.

Mr. Hume: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is serious public concern over the Stalker affair? As there is also concern, which is felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House, about a serious miscarriage of justice in the Guildford and Birmingham bombing cases, will that not tend to undermine confidence in the administration of justice, particularly as it applies to Irish people, unless it is allayed? Will the right hon. Lady take a personal interest in those issues and ensure that steps are taken to see that justice is done in those cases?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that questions about a particular case should be directed to the Lord Chancellor or to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will also know that anything that one might say about the Stalker affair could impinge on one of the inquiries into the RUC, and so I can say nothing further.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will not the problem of hypothermia among the old become much worse in the decades ahead if we fail to press ahead with a civil nuclear power programme?

The Prime Minister: I take my hon. Friend's point. It is necessary for this country to go ahead with a nuclear power programme. It will be impossible to obtain all the energy that the Western world, and the developed world, need unless nuclear power programmes go ahead.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises directly from your earlier ruling. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) referred to an article in The Observer concerning
What Blunt Bernard said to Reluctant Colette.
Anyone reading that article will see that it makes serious allegations against—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not raising a legitimate point of order. My ruling was that in this Chamber hon. Members should not accuse each other of lying. That would be unparliamentary. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman knows that, and would not do it himself.

Mr. Dalyell: No one is accused of lying. It is a question of information in a paper. Surely the advice that you receive from the learned Clerk must be that a statement should be forthcoming. Is the Prime Minister going to take legal action—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The unparliamentary expression "the Prime Minister lied" cannot be allowed in the Chamber. That ruling is in the interest of good order, and the whole House will agree with that.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The article says that Bernard Ingham told Colette Bow that
"You will … do what you are … well told" Either there is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is reprehensible that a Front Bench spokesman should try to continue Question Time through me. I stopped the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and asked him to rephrase his question, which he correctly did. That is the end of the matter. I do not know what Mr. Bernard Ingham said, and it is nothing to do with me.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter of the utmost seriousness. Either there has been a gross contempt of the House in the information that we have been given, or there has been a gross libel of a senior member of the Prime Minister's staff. For the Prime Minister to pretend that she is unaware of those allegations and for her to be unwilling to make a statement at the Dispatch Box is an abuse in itself.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Front Bench believe that, they can raise the matter at Prime Minister's Question Time on Thursday.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of Question Time?

Mr. Skinner: Yes. Would you agree, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] She is scuttling away. Would you agree, Mr. Speaker, on the question of getting parliamentary language correct, that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) could have used the phrase which I used some time ago and which you accepted—that the Prime Minister would not recognise the truth if it were sprayed on her eyeballs?

Mr. Clelland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did the right thing in rephrasing his question. I do not think that I can help him any more. I do not think that we want to pursue this matter.

Mr. Clelland: I assumed that I had chosen my words very carefully. I said that the article contained accusations that the Prime Minister had lied. I was not accusing the Prime Minister of lying, but merely quoting the article.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman looks in "Erskine May" he will see that words used by attribution are equally unparliamentary.

Foreign Affairs Council

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffery Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council which I chaired in Luxembourg on 27 October. The Minister for Trade represented the United Kingdom.
The Council approved the Commission's intention to launch immediate action in the GATT with a view to securing rapid removal of Japanese discriminatory barriers to imports of alcoholic drinks. The Council also decided to keep under close review the conditions under which Japanese products are exported to the European Community.
The Council welcomed the agreement with the United States settling the outstanding trade dispute over citrus fruit and pasta.
The Council also discussed briefly the negotiations with the United States about the trade effects of enlargement, the proposals for the 1987 generalised scheme of preferences and recent Canadian trade measures.
Agreement was also reached on new Community programmes in energy and telecommunications. These include allocations of £29 million to Northern Ireland.
The Council welcomed the recent agreement on a revised Community mandate for the negotiations with Mediterranean countries on the maintenance of their trade access to the Community following the accession of Spain and Portugal.
The Council considered its reaction to the expressed wish of COMECON to enter into official relations with the Community as well as possible bilateral agreements with Romania, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. It confirmed the importance of mutually beneficial commercial and economic links with eastern European countries.
The Council reached agreement on the implementation of a Community-wide ban on imports of gold coins from South Africa. The member states also adopted a decision suspending new investment in South Africa by firms and individuals in the Community. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will he announcing shortly details of how this measure will be implemented.
The Council approved proposals to grant the Palestinian populations of the west bank and Gaza preferential access to the Community market, and agreed to establish a fresh aid programme for those territories. These proposals will bring practical help to those living in the occupied territories. They were the result of a British initiative. They underline our continuing commitment to the search for peace in the region.
I gave my Community colleagues a full briefing on the Hindawi case and presented them with the conclusive evidence of Syrian official involvement. They were both impressed and disturbed. The Greek representative could not associate himself with any measures or statement against Syria or the Syrian Government. With that sole exception, all Ministers expressed their collective sense of outrage that the agencies of a state had been involved in such an incident. And they expressed full understanding and support for the action which we had taken. They

undertook that no partner would accept as a diplomat any of the Syrians who had been expelled from London in connection with this case.
We instructed the Political Committee to meet on 6 November to continue this discussion. By that date ambassadors in Damascus will have presented the Syrian Government with the evidence of what has taken place, and will have reported back. We have agreed to consider at the next ministerial meeting in London, on 10 November, the possibility of action in relation to arms sales to Syria; high-level visits to and from Syria; the activities of Syrian embassies in the member states; security arrangements affecting the operations of Syrian Arab airlines. Yesterday's proceedings went some way—but by no means as far as the House would have wished —to send the Syrian Government a clear message that their behaviour has been intolerable.
Finally, Syria is one of the countries for which the Community's Mediterranean financial protocols expire next Saturday. Renewal requires unanimity. There can be no question of the United Kingdom agreeing to further financial assistance for Syria in present circumstances.

Mr. Denis Healey: First, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I welcome the agreement which was reached yesterday that the Palestinian inhabitants of the west bank and Gaza should now have preferential access to the Community markets and should enjoy a new aid programme. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what other initiatives were suggested yesterday to promote peace between Israel and the Arabs? He rightly reminded the House on Friday that the absence of that is the fundamental cause of many of the terrorist acts which we have tragically witnessed in recent months.
Beyond that, we must accept that the outcome of yesterday's meeting was deplorable. Although Community Ministers had all agreed at earlier meetings under the Home Secretary, for example, that they would adopt concerted action against terrorism, half the Foreign Ministers concerned did not bother to turn up yesterday, and none of the other Foreign Ministers supported the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals.
Have any of the Community Governments now accepted the responsibility of protecting British interests in Syria? He was not able to tell us on Friday whether any other Government had accepted this responsibility and I hope that he will be able to do so this afternoon. The Opposition hope very much that the meeting on 10 November will be more successful in achieving common action in the areas which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has listed.
The House will be aware that the Opposition fully supported the Foreign Secretary's statement on Friday, and we support today his decision to impose financial and economic sanctions on Syria by vetoing any proposals for financial aid that may come before the Community. This is a precedent which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to follow in respect of other countries. Financial sanctions will undoubtedly cause unemployment and economic difficulty to the people of Syria—and in the circumstances, in my view, rightly so.
I pass to what the Foreign Secretary had to tell us about the discussions on South Africa. He must have found himself in some difficulty yesterday in arguing with his colleagues that they should not allow commercial or


political national interests to impede concerted action against terrorism when Her Majesty's Government have done precisely that when the Community has considered concerted action against the South African Government, who have been guilty of terrorism on a large scale, especially in Namibia, and of armed attack on friendly states.
I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman some questions about the discussions on South Africa yesterday. First, why has the Community agreed to exclude Namibia from the scope of its sanctions, thereby opening a gaping hole in the ring fence which it is supposed to erect around South Africa? The American Congress, now overriding the President's veto, has included Namibia in the American sanctions. Why has the Community excluded iron ore and ferrous metals from the scope of sanctions? Has the Community now accepted responsibility for ensuring that its members carry out the decisions that have already been taken in the last few months on sanctions against South Africa?
The Foreign Secretary must recognise that action against terrorism must be indivisible if we take it seriously, and his case against the pusillanimous behaviour of some of our Community partners over Syria will be enormously strengthened if he does not show the same pusillanimity in dealing with sanctions against South Africa.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has, characteristically, spoilt his presentation of quite a reasonable set of points. The discussion on South Africa that took place yesterday was concerned simply with the enforcement of the measures agreed at the meeting on 16 September. We were able to reach agreement on the method of doing that by adopting definitions common to the Community and generally used within comparable provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community. The House will have a further opportunity of asking a large number of questions about South Africa during ordinary Foreign Office questions tomorrow.

Mr. Healey: I will.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will, and I hope that he makes a better shot of it than he has today.
As to the substance of the matter, there is no question of a whole range of commercial and economic sanctions against Syria in the decision announced yesterday. What I announced, which was plainly accepted by the House, is that we will not assent to the granting of further financial aid to Syria. That seems to be entirely right and is supported on all sides of the House.
As for British interests, no decisions have yet been arrived at about whether, and if so in what fashion, interest sections will be established either in Damascus or in London.
With regard to the support of other Foreign Ministers, it should be recognised that all of them, with the exception of Greece, are prepared to take further action. Some of that further action will be for consideration at the meeting to be held on 10 November. One of the central problems yesterday was to secure unanimity from all the 11 on the same action being taken. I agree with the right hon.

Gentleman, as does the entire House, that we want to see a more concerted and effective set of decisions coming from the Community at the next meeting.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the provisions made in relation to the Palestinians on the west bank and Gaza. That in itself is a useful initiative. We shall be returning to the subject of wider middle eastern questions when we next meet in political co-operation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to take into account the fact that another statement is to follow that is of considerable importance, followed by a ten-minute Bill and an important Church Measure on which there is a great deal of interest. I shall allow questions on this matter to continue until four o'clock, but I bear in mind that there will be foreign affairs questions tomorrow.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many in this country believe that our so-called partners in the Community yesterday behaved in a tardy, timid and, above all, fatuous manner? Does he also agree that the behaviour of the French is particularly craven? If they cannot rally round in the cause of the fight against terrorism, what hope is there for any coherent Community policy on anything?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I share absolutely my hon. Friend's sense of disappointment at the failure to reach unanimous agreement yesterday, but it should be recognised that on very many of the measures before my colleagues the majority of them were prepared to take action of the kind we advocated. The problem was to secure unanimity from all of them in relation to all the measures we were seeking. It is for that reason that we shall be coming back to the matter on 10 November. It was regrettable that the French were unable to agree to a majority of the measures that we wanted, but I noted with interest that the President of France, in a television interview today, has said that, if proof of conduct of a terrorist kind was there,
Europe's response ought to be total firmness.
He continued:
there should be no compromise with terrorism and, above all, no compromise with states involved with terrorism.
I look forward to the fulfilment of that statement at our next meeting.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: How can it be thought appropriate, however outrageous Syrian behaviour may have been, to suspend EEC aid to Damascus when no such action has been taken to abrogate the EEC agreements with Israel, which has been guilty of much grosser offences of state terrorism against Lebanon against Syria against Iraq against Tunisia, and, for many years, against the Palestinian people both in Palestine and in the Palestinian diaspora?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has presented his characteristically specific view on the matter with characteristic vigour. The question of renewing any financial protocol in favour of Syria will not be supported by the United Kingdom. I am sure that that is right.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with his colleagues the abuse by some embassies of diplomatic baggage, whereby weapons and instruments of death can be spread about? If so, what progress did he make in reaching some


agreement that all embassy baggage should be scrutinised in the same way as any other baggage coming to this country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises a matter that has been discussed in the House many times. It was not discussed by European Community Ministers yesterday. The matter was fully considered by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of this House, which recognised the difficulty of attempting to impose a universal ban of the kind that my hon. Friend describes. We have made plain our willingness, in the event of manifest danger to human life, to provide for screening of diplomatic baggage. To go beyond that would involve real and substantial difficulties for the handling of ordinary diplomatic baggage for embassies, including our own.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Did the Foreign Secretary fail to persuade some European Governments of the facts of Syrian officials' complicity in terrorism, or does he believe that they continue in a long pattern of turning a blind eye to Syrian activities in this field while choosing softer options, such as Libya, to be the target of their attack? Does the Foreign Secretary believe that he has now persuaded the Prime Minister that sanctions are not immoral and were appropriate in this case? Does he believe that better preparation could have led to a clearer signal?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I persist in repudiating the parallel that the hon. Gentleman tries to make, along with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), between the way to treat state-directed terrorism and wider arguments about sanctions. Regarding the conviction of European countries, they were impressed by the quality and weight of the evidence advanced about Syrian involvement in the matter. There was no doubt about that. The difficulties arose about their willingness to agree—all 11 of them—on the same set of additional measures. In those circumstances, we are conducting the discussion further on 10 November.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while the reaction of the French Government is disappointing, they nevertheless have hostages at risk, and that must colour their attitude? Will he assure the House that everything possible is being done so that we do not have hostages at risk? If they are unfortunately taken, what retaliatory action do we plan?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the difficulties created for everyone in such circumstances by the existence of hostages. Some hostages of our nationality are detained in the region. There is no way in which a state can guarantee the safety of its citizens from the risk of being taken in that way. I am sure that the firmest foundation of our policy on hostages remains our clear commitment to the view that we make no deals in respect of such matters.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that he did not tell his colleagues of the disgraceful misuse of a diplomatic bag by the Syrians for the importation of terrorist weapons? Did he not discuss with the Italians their proposals for electronic surveillance of the bag? What does he intend to do about the arsenal of terrorist weaponry which is in the Syrian embassy here? Will he simply let it go either abroad or to other terrorist bodies in this country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that those matters are the subject of current consideration not only by our Government but also by the Italian Government. As far as I know, the Italian Government have not said in what way they intend precisely to put into effect their recent statement on the matter. There are real difficulties, studied and accepted by the Foreign Affairs Committee, about imposing a general ban or a general requirement for surveillance on bags of that kind.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is not the sickeningly inadequate response by our EEC allies to the Syrian terror not only a betrayal of our commitment but an incentive to further terrorism? Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether the French are continuing to sell arms to the Syrians?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend must understand—I say this with the greatest respect to him —that it will not be helpful to promote the collective response that is necessary in such circumstances if one commences by making a judgment about betrayal and sickeningly inadequate responses.

Mr. Lawrence: But that is what it is.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. Let me amplify that further. For example, in relation to my hon. and learned Friend's specific question about arms sales, one of the matters under discussion yesterday, on which, already yesterday, the majority of the Foreign Ministers present were prepared to agree, was a ban on further arms sales. One Government representative who specifically endorsed that was France's representative, so it is wrong for my hon. and learned Friend to take that particular case as an example. I repeat: the French Government's representative was willing to join the majority in endorsing a ban on future arms sales to Syria.

Mr. Ron Brown: Did the Foreign Secretary discuss with his EEC colleagues the disclosure by Bernard Kalb of the fact that the American Administration had been deliberately lying about Libya, and had been involved in all sorts of dirty tricks to try to destabilise Gaddafi's regime? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now make a statement admitting that the reasons for bombing Libya were wrong, and that the Government have been misled by President Reagan, therefore? Will he give an explanation and, more importantly, make reparations to the Libyan people for that mistake?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The case on which the House reacted on Friday about Syrian Government involvement was a comprehensive and convincing case, which convinced my colleagues yesterday, with the exception of the Greek representative, as it convinced the House on Friday. There was no question of it being founded on evidence from the United States or anywhere else. The hon. Gentleman's questions about the bombing of Libya should compel him to consider the legitimacy of the bombing in Afghanistan.

Sir William Clark: Although I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend says about future arms contracts, will he give a categoric assurance that the present contract that the French apparently have with the Syrians will be cancelled?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot answer questions in detail about existing arms contracts with the French Government or any other Government. I am making it clear to the House that the French representative made it clear yesterday that France was ready to agree on the spot to the suspension of all arms sales to Syria — [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]— from member states in present circumstances.

Mr. James Lamond: When the French President said on television,
If the evidence against Syria is fair,
was he not saying that many of the Ministers hoped that the evidence against Syria would be a little more reliable that the unequivocal evidence against Libya that was brought forward in the House and paraded before Privy Councillors only, which enabled the Prime Minister to carry out her policies, and which has now been revealed to have been fabricated entirely in the White House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the statement and questions on it. There is no foundation whatsoever for the implications of what he is saying.

Mr. Derek Conway: Although many of us may not have expected much more support from our so-called European allies, my right hon. and learned friend will no doubt be encouraged by what has been said on both sides of the House about the extra citrus trade privileges for the west bank, but is he aware that the present quota is kept exclusively for Israeli goods and is not spread to the occupied territories? Therefore, will he assure the House that that will be the case with the new allocation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The point raised by my hon. Friend is precisely the point that led us to propose new arrangements, which will involve an extension of existing arrangements for access to the Community market for producers on the west bank and the Gaza strip.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Foreign Secretary has led the House to believe that he has irrefutable evidence linking the Syrian Government with acts of terrorism. Was he able to place that evidence before

his EEC ministerial colleagues? If he did, why were they not convinced, or has he more evidence that he will produce at the meeting in November?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has missed the point of my answers to earlier questions. I have already said twice that, with the exception of the Greek representative, all my European colleagues were impressed and convinced by the evidence that I laid before them, just as this House was convinced on Friday. There is no question of their not being convinced.

Mr. David Atkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the talks between COMECON and the Community were broken off in 1980 because of the invasion of Afghanistan? Can he tell the House what has changed in Afghanistan to enable those talks to be resumed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Matters have changed since then in a number of respects, although not, unfortunately, in Afghanistan. It seems to us to be sensible to clear the way for bilateral trade agreements between the Community and the member states of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and in that context to look at the proposals for a relationship with the CMEA.

Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary made one statement that must have disturbed every hon. Member. Does he really mean that the Government do not know whether any other Government will represent Britain's interests in Damascus after the rupture of diplomatic relations? That would be a uniquely dangerous situation in which to leave 250 British citizens. In Libya, our interests are represented by Italy and our interests in the Argentine are also represented. Is the Foreign Secretary saying that he does not know whether any other Government will represent our interests in Syria?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has made a good point, although not in the way he put it. He must listen to me with care. There is no problem about getting another Government to represent British interests in Syria, but the necessary consent from Syria is not yet forthcoming. The right hon. Gentleman is right to be anxious about that.

Availability for Work (Test)

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the test of availability for work.
This summer we have been testing a new procedure following criticisms by the Public Accounts Committee about the effectiveness of the current arrangements for testing the availability for work of claimants for unemployment benefit. The new procedure consists of an expanded questionnaire which is issued to all new claimants and seeks information about the work they are looking for and what steps they are taking to make themselves available for work. Claimants have also been interviewed where appropriate to assist in determining their eligibility for benefit and to help them towards suitable labour market opportunities.
Perhaps I could remind the House that it is a longstanding condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit that persons have to be available for work on every day for which they make a claim. The test of availability is normally satisfied by persons showing that they are actively seeking work on those days for which benefit is paid. The final decision about entitlement rests with the independent statutory authorities — an adjudication officer in the first instance—and there are statutory rights of appeal against decisions made.
The new procedure that we have tested in the pilot areas has shown that the better evidence provided by the new form enables a proper assessment to be made of a person's entitlement to benefit. Therefore, we will introduce it progressively in all unemployment benefit offices from the end of October. The rules that make benefit payable only to those people who are available for work are long standing and the Government have no present intention to change them. The new arrangements are simply changes in the procedure in applying the existing rules.

Mr. John Prescott: I cannot offer thanks to the Government For a shabby statement that involves millions of our people, which is clearly hiding its true purpose and which has clearly been dragged out of the Government by the exposure and campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for which the House is most grateful. I protest that the statement has been made one hour after it was made in another place. That shows, yet again, the Government's contempt for elected representatives.
Is the Paymaster General aware that his justification for this 18th fiddle of the unemployment figures—that he has the support of the Public Accounts Committee—is fraudulent? Is he not aware that the Public Accounts Committee made it clear that it welcomed any effective changes in the work test rules, provided they were not oppressive? Even the Treasury reply to the Public Accounts Committee recommended that the series of questions now to be put to everyone claiming unemployment benefit should be put only to new claimants suspected to be in doubt about their benefit.
If the Paymaster General is anxious to save public money by denying benefits to those people making illegal claims, perhaps he will tell the House what surveys or estimates of fraudulent payments have been made, because

it is costing him twice as much to hire 1,500 new benefit officers as the pilot survey estimated he would save through the shake-out of the unemployed. Does he not accept that the real purpose of this exercise is not to save public money but to reduce by a process of intimidation and trick questions a quarter of the people included in the unemployment figures, thus reducing the number of unemployed to 3 million in time for the general election?
Can the Paymaster General assure the House that answering questions such as whether claimants will work away from home, whether they will work for a minimum wage, whatever that level is, and whether they are able immediately to be free from their dependants, especially where the mother or wife is in a part-time job or disabled, will not penalise them in terms of benefit? Will he make available to the House the guidance notes given to the benefit officers who will be judging the replies, and will he make it clear that answers will not be used oppressively to deny people benefit? That was requested by the PAC. The statement is a further example of the Government's vindictive nature. They are more anxious to fiddle unemployment figures and to blame and harass the unemployed than to provide jobs for them.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was followed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and they both made a great deal out of a survey and an administrative change first announced to the House in reply to a parliamentary question in March. Yesterday, both hon. Members made use of documents that are freely available to the staff side in the Department of Employment and which were part of preparations that we have been carrying out for some time. As usual, they latched on to this administrative change, which tightens up our procedures in response to a request from an all-party Committee of the House, and tried to turn it into a basis for wild political allegations.
The law that requires a claimant for unemployment benefit to be available for work was last restated in 1975 in an Act passed by the previous Labour Government. It has been the law ever since the introduction of the new Beveridge social security system. The vast majority of people of all political persuasions think that it is a sensible law.

Mr. Prescott: Just ask them now.

Mr. Clarke: I challenge the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to say whether the Labour party, if it were ever returned to office, would start paying unemployment benefit to people who told our officers that they did not want work and were not available for work. Obviously, it would not. The questions that we have tried out and are now introducing are in no way onerous. The form is clear and asks perfectly reasonable questions. It has been drawn up carefully in the light of the law established in the judgment of the commissioners as well as that established by long-standing practice. It gives a basis upon which we can judge eligibility for benefit. That is what the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee clearly said we were not doing.
The hon. Gentleman talked about cost. We are taking on 1,400 staff and the cost to the Government will be £14 million, but if that reduces the number of claims allowed by less than 2 per cent. it will pay for itself. The rest is


public money saved, not by behaving in an onerous fashion but simply by not paying benefit to people whom this House has always said are not really entitled to it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about surveys. He follows these matters as closely as I do and studies the annual labour force surveys that we produce. He knows that those surveys show that, of the over 3 million unemployed claimants, over 800,000 appear to be economically inactive according to their replies to the surveys. In the privacy of their homes, over 300,000 of those receiving benefit tell our surveyors that they would not like work. That is the figure we arrive at as a result of our surveys. Everybody knows that the Public Accounts Committee was basically right when it said that a more accurate test is needed so that benefit is paid only to those who are genuinely entitled to it.
The hon. Gentleman asked what will happen if people are not available for work because they are disabled, pregnant, or have other extremely good reasons. The answer is that we have told our officers that these people are to be referred to the Department of Health and Social Security and given leaflets, because they are almost certainly entitled to other benefits. But they are not unemployed by any definition, either legally or in common sense, and they are not entitled to unemployment benefit as a result of Acts of Parliament passed by this House, including the Acts of Parliament of former Governments.
Of course the guidance notes will be made available. Like the other changes that we make from time to time to our arrangements, these changes are not designed to secure any unworthy purpose. They are designed merely to ensure that we discharge our duty, as the all-party Committees of this House require, to account properly for public money and pay benefit to those who are entitled to it—which we do—but not to those who do not qualify for it. That is what we intend to achieve. The unemployment figures will continue to reflect, as they do now, the best monthly estimate that we can make of the unemployed. It is quite absurd for the hon. Gentleman to resist every change that we make and to want to add to the unemployment figures those who are not unemployed.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, particularly in those parts of the country that resemble mine, one of the great tragedies is that a number of young people claim unemployment benefit because they have been persuaded that it is better for them to do so rather than to seek work? Will he assure the House that the new procedures will encourage them to take work, because their opportunities for being promoted at work are real?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. None of our officers will be instructed to deter people from seeking work by offering them benefit instead. One of the advantages of the procedure that we are introducing—schemes like Restart and the availability test—is that it will enable our officials to find out more about the unemployed. The system has lapsed into one in which people merely came in, made rather short applications and then were paid benefit. There was no further contact with them. Those who are not entitled to benefit will be refused benefit, and so they should be. Those who are entitled to benefit will be steered to the Jobcentres and to the record number of vacancies that they now have on their books.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Many of the new questions that are to be asked of those who are suffering the early shock of losing their jobs are hypothetical. Since Ministers refuse to answer hypothetical questions, why should newly unemployed people be required to do so? On the same point, the briefing that the Paymaster General has just circulated refers to the unemployed claimants "offering" additional information. Will he tell the House quite clearly whether this is voluntary questioning, or whether the word "offering" is quite off the mark, because the unemployed will be required to enter this statement? Finally, is the Paymaster General aware that such a multiple written inquisition of those who are suffering the first shock of losing their jobs is wholly contrary to our tradition of free play and fairness?

Mr. Clarke: I can only advise the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Member who is interested to look at the extremely straightforward and clear questions that are set out on the form. To describe this as an inquisition is a ridiculous misuse of language. Outside the House I have heard hon. Members refer to these as "trick" questions. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) referred to them as hypothetical questions.

Mr. Prescott: Read them.

Mr. Clarke: Let me read them, as I am invited by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to do:

"1. What are you doing to find work?
2. What job do you normally do?
3. What job are you looking for?
4. Are you willing to consider any other jobs?"

They are not trick questions.

Ms. Clare Short: Can you start work today?

Mr. Clarke: Yes,
Can you start work today?"—
[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Paymaster General is seeking to give information to the House.

Hon. Members: No he is not.

Mr. Clarke: Can you start work today?
is an entirely clear, unambiguous and fair question. The law established by this House makes it clear that unemployment benefit is a daily benefit and that a person is entitled to it for those days when he is able to start work but cannot find work. These are straightforward questions which I suspect every Member of the Public Accounts Committee is likely to agree should have been asked before now. We have been paying out benefit to those who are not entitled to it. If somebody refuses to answer these basic questions, he is likely to be referred to the adjudication office who will make a decision on eligibility for benefit, as he usually does, in the light of his judgment of the person's eligibility for benefit. That is true of many benefits. If a person refuses to answer questions about why he is claiming benefit, he is likely to find that his claim is put in some doubt.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the House again that we have a very heavy day in front of us. I shall allow questions


on the statement until half past four, and then we must move on. I ask for brief questions. Perhaps that will lead to brief answers.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. As he said, these obvious questions should have been asked all the way along. I urge him to progress further and to consider the introduction of a workfare system. That system has been very successful in many parts of the United States. It would provide work for those who genuinely want to work.

Mr. Clarke: As I understand it, workfare of the kind advocated by my hon. Friend is practised on any scale only in the state of West Virginia. I reserve judgment about whether it is successful there. I do not believe that it would be either suitable or necessary to introduce into this country a working-for-benefit system. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for this entirely harmless questionnaire. He is right to say, as he has been saying for some time, that we should have had some test of this kind before now. No doubt he shares my astonishment that the Opposition now appear to advocate the paying out of money to anybody who comes in and asks for it, regardless of whether he wants to work.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not cover other important parts of the Public Accounts Committee's report. We said that if more could be found out about the problems of the unemployed, we should then consider what action might be necessary and useful. If it could be established quite clearly that the questions would be effective without being oppressive, that would be fair. However, it is the oppressive nature of this questionnaire upon which we sought assurances that we have not received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he aware that the most important aspect is that substantial sums of money are lost to the Inland Revenue through tax fiddles and the like because the Inland Revenue does not have sufficient people to establish how much money is being lost? We have said again and again that if the Inland Revenue can assess how much tax fraud is costing the country, the DHSS ought to be able to make a similar kind of assessment to enable it to judge how many people should be examining this matter. It is the failure to do this that makes us suspect what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Clarke: I am a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman, who holds an extremely prestigious position in the House as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, whose 30th report on this subject is extremely clear, should be responding to political pressure and trying to put a novel interpretation on that report. The report to which he put his name says:
The formal tests of availability for work are weak and we welcome the DHSS's decision to consider whether more effective tests are practicable.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a survey of the extent of the problem so that we could justify the steps which have been taken. I refer him to the labour force survey that we carry out regularly. I have before me the figures for spring 1985. On the strength of that door-to-door survey, which was conducted in the privacy of the homes of those surveyed, 880,000 benefit receivers were inactive, as far as the surveyors could estimate: 260,000

had not sought work in the last four weeks; 360,000 would not like work; and 200,000 were already working. The report was justified and we responded to it. If the right hon. Gentleman says that it is onerous, I challenge him to cite a question that is onerous in its effect. This is a perfectly sensible application of the entirely sensible recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in so far as criticism can be levelled at him and his Department, it is that these excellent reforms were not introduced years ago? Is the Labour party really now advocating that taxpayers' money should be used to pay unemployment benefit to people who are not entitled to it? Is he aware that the policy revealed by the Labour party this afternoon will be deeply resented by the overwhelming majority of people, not least by the low-paid?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have here the transcript of an interview given by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on BBC television at lunchtime. It began with Mr. Martyn Lewis saying:
I asked John Prescott whether the Government was right to make sure that unemployment benefit went only to people who are looking for work.
Yes, of course.
replied the hon. Gentleman. That leaves me utterly bewildered about what all this fuss is about.

Mr. Frank Field: As the Paymaster General has twice said that he is concerned for those who are genuinely eligible for benefit, and as the Government's figures show that 400,000 unemployed people are eligible but do not claim, when can we expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a statement announcing help for that group?

Mr. Clarke: We are not changing the rules of entitlement to any benefit. They are exactly as Parliament always prescribed. People entitled to benefit will continue to get it. We find that people claim unemployment benefit when they are entitled to other benefits. Our officers will refer such claims to the office which pays the benefits to which they are entitled. There is an increasing take-up of benefit. Colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security and I welcome that.
The odd fact is, however, that recent surveys have shown that the number of people who are looking for work has fallen steadily for some time whereas the number of people who claim and receive benefits has been increasing. We now have a rapidly increasing number of jobs in the economy, and the biggest number of vacancies since 1979. It is only common sense to pay benefit to people who are genuinely unable to find work.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Should riot the House reflect that, if people were refused unemployment benefit as a result of the operation of this questionnaire, we are a humane society and do not drive people to die of hunger or into total destitution? Everybody in Britain enjoys a guaranteed minimum income of one type or another.
Would not the time now be right to consider the possibility of introducing a tax credit scheme or, as I would prefer, a basic income guarantee scheme, so that people who are not really available for work would not find it


necessary to apply in this way, but could manage with their small resources without the need to go through this casework?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is quite right. People entitled to other benefits will get them. I have long had sympathy with my hon. Friend's advocacy of a much simpler system such as tax credits and the eventual unification of the tax and benefit systems. That proposal continues to be examined by all who are interested in this subject. If we could simplify the system, we might enable the Opposition to understand the matter more clearly, and perhaps get their approach to benefit rules somewhat more in order.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the test apply to people who, for health reasons, can do only certain types of work? What consultation has there been about the test with the organisations of disabled people?

Mr. Clarke: There will be some people who are not available for work because of ill health. They will almost certainly be entitled to sickness or invalidity benefits. They will be advised of that and referred to the DHSS.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the wide public support that there will be for his action, not least because there is general public sympathy with the plight of the unemployed and concern that their benefits should not be cut? There is general sympathy for the proposition that people in receipt of unemployment benefit should be properly analysed. The changes will be welcomed.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am quite sure that people want us to pay benefit to those who satisfy the test that Parliament has laid down. Most people regard it as quite absurd that we make no sensible inquiries to ensure that people qualify.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not the questions but the interpretation of the answers that we are worried about? We are also worried about the instructions that have been given to supervisors to exclude people from the register if they do not answer the questions to their satisfaction. We are more concerned with the answers than with the questions. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is hypocritical to make a statement about a list of questions concerning people's availability to travel to work and their desire to seek work when there is more than 30 per cent. unemployment in my constituency, more than 18 per cent. unemployment in the county, more than 16 per cent. unemployment in the country and more than 11 per cent. unemployment in the nation? It is a daft set of questions.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that there is nothing wrong with the questions. That is a big advance on the stance taken by his Front Bench and by the Liberal party. If he believes that there is something wrong with the treatment of the answers, I invite him to examine the guidance that we are giving adjudication officers. He will find that it is wholly in accordance with the law laid down by the House and the judgments of commissioners. I will make it available to any hon. Member who does not have a copy. People who

cannot get work will continue to get benefit. We are not changing the rules. This is an argument about a sensible administrative change.

Mr. Tim Smith: The Opposition appear to be arguing that it is somehow oppressive to ask somebody whether he can start work today. Surely it is only the man who is busy in the black economy who has anything to fear from that question.

Mr. Clarke: We would be completely neglecting our duty to taxpayers if we did not ask such a plainly obvious question. Those who cannot answer yes are not entitled to unemployment benefit. Every hon. Member has gone along with that law since at least 1948.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Does the Paymaster General agree that he can expect the type of response that he has received from these Benches as long as he and his colleagues in the Conservative party pander to the myth that the overwhelming majority of the unemployed are scroungers? They are not scroungers, and he and his colleagues would do well to stop pandering to the myth that they are and to confront the real problem, which is providing jobs for people who are on the dole.

Mr. Clarke: I am not aware of any colleague, certainly not one for whom I am responsible, who has ever referred to a majority or a significant proportion of the unemployed as scroungers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Archer."] The number of people working in the British economy has been rising steadily for each quarter during the past 13 years. Last month, we had the best figures for falling unemployment since April 1979. We now have the largest number of vacancies notified to us since early 1979. As the Opposition parties begin to lose arguments on the real economy and employment, they are beginning to turn to obscure arguments about administration.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his questions will not be objected to by those who have nothing to hide? Indeed, they will be welcomed in areas of high unemployment such as the north-east as people there want help concentrated on those who are genuinely unemployed and seeking work.

Mr. Clarke: We piloted some of the initiatives to bring more help to the unemployed in my hon. Friend's part of the world. We first tried out job clubs in the north-east. We are to have 1,000 of them because they were so successful at helping the long-term unemployed get back on the way to work. We had a pilot scheme for the Restart scheme in the north-east, among other areas. It, too, is now helping the long-term unemployed. That is what the House ought to be debating—our positive assistance to the young and the long-term unemployed—but it is the Opposition who want to waste time on this sort of nonsense.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Will the Paymaster General understand a simple point? In areas such as mine, where even on the Government's manipulated figures, unemployment is running at 23 per cent., the public want not some new system of calculation, but a policy that creates real jobs. What is there in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement which suggests a change of policy which will get people back to work rather than pretend that people who are out of work are not unemployed?

Mr. Clarke: I have given the latest figures for the growth of new employment and mentioned the increase in the number of people in employment. I welcome the opportunity to come to the House to make a statement about the introduction of the two-year youth training scheme, Restart and the new policy initiatives that my right hon. and noble Friend announced last month. Those are the positive steps that the Government are taking.
I am making this statement because an Opposition Member got hold of some long-available literature about the administrative change, which we had distributed to our trade unions. The result is that the House has had its attention drawn to what I would have thought was a rather elementary step, taking heed of an all-party Committee's advice to ensure that we pay benefits only to those who are genuinely unemployed.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: So far as I can see, my right hon. and learned Friend is simply putting into formal writing what was previously asked orally. If it was not it should have been.
How often will the candidate seeking work fill in one of these forms? Will it be once for all? Will it be done every month, or every three months? My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that one of the difficulties for people who are available for work and who find work away is that they cannot afford to take it because they wish to keep the family together.

Mr. Clarke: Previously, only one question was asked which I will paraphrase as, "Are you available for work?" Of those questioned, 99 per cent. said yes. The Public Accounts Committee rightly pointed out that that was a rather dubious answer and that serious tests were required. That is what we have introduced.
The questionnaire will be used only for new claimants who apply for benefit. Experience has shown that of those who become unemployed, half move into new jobs within three months—that is the usual pattern in our economy. If they fall into the category—a fifth will—of becoming long-term unemployed, they will be given, after 12 months, an hour-long interview under our Restart programme and they will be steered back into the path of work. That will occur unless, at that stage, they reveal that they are not available for work. We are piloting interviews with people who have been on the register for six months to see whether it is worth while to extend the Restart programme.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will allow questions to continue for a further five minutes on this important matter but then we must move on.

Mr. Terry Fields: Will the Paymaster General comment on why 20 employees from unemployment offices in the north-west, seconded to a course starting next week, should be staying at the prestigious Adelphi hotel in Liverpool at a charge of £36 a night? Their aim is to stop people claiming legitimate expenses through unemployment benefit. The age of the super-snooper has arrived when the Minister's Department can spend out £36 a night to train these people for a week which equates to £3,600 per week. That is twice the amount that a single claimant would take two years to acquire. The Government should be spending resources in Liverpool where one in four people is

underpaid, where £20 million is unclaimed and the staff of unemployment offices are already stretched. When will the Government do something in that direction?

Mr. Clarke: I thought the hon. Gentleman usually discribed as snoopers those people who took part in fraud investigations. I know he objects to such investigations, but we believe that it is right to investigate the fraud that occurs.
This questionnaire is quite a different matter. It is not right that it is depriving benefit to those who are legally entitled. These questions and the guidance we have given are merely to ensure that the law, as laid down by this House, and last restated when Labour was in power, is properly applied. Those who satisfy the criteria For entitlement will, of course, get benefit.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, not only do those people who are genuinely seeking work have absolutely nothing to fear from the changes that he has outlined, but that it is positively in the interests of those who are seeking work —including the category referred to by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), those who are entitled but are not claiming—that those who are riot genuinely seeking work should not receive benefit?

Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that will be the reaction of the vast majority of British people if they follow this afternoon's exchanges.

Mr. Jack Ashley: It is very interesting to see the Minister's air of injured innocence, especially after his bland statements.
Can he confirm or deny a report in The Guardian today that benefits will be denied to newly unemployed people if they cannot make arrangements to take care of a disabled relative? Will he recognise that such a proposal would be not only shocking but unrealistic because when he was Minister for Health he and his colleagues did nothing to improve community care for severely disabled people?

Mr. Clarke: On this occasion, I shall not be drawn by the right hon. Gentleman's last outrageous allegation, but I do not agree.
The questions are designed to ensure that people are available for work. People who are not free to take work on the day for which they are claiming are not entitled to benefit. The House has always ruled so. I have not heard any Opposition Member say that he or she wishes to see the law on entitlement changed.
With regard to the care of disabled there are other benefits available to which the disabled person or his carer may be entitled. During our period of office, we have made a vast improvement to the range of benefits and their scales which are available to disabled people.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is in the interests of all genuine claimants that these tests should be fully effective? Genuine claimants should welcome an interview within 16 weeks as recommended by the Rayner scrutiny team.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The person who is genuinely unemployed — who has been made redundant, is looking for a job but cannot find one—will share our opinion. He has a claim record and is entitled to benefit, and he would not wish to see that


benefit going to someone who comes into the office but is obviously not available for work. Those who are genuinely unemployed feel just as strongly about this, as do many employed members of the public.

Ms. Clare Short: The Paymaster General has been less than fully honest with the House. He has told us that this is a simple tidying up exercise and is not a change in policy. However, the briefing note that went out to all staff in unemployment benefit offices — but not to hon. Members—stated:
The experiments are showing that using the UB671 questionnaire … has reduced the number of claims made and increased the number disallowed.
That is what it is about and that is what the Minister told his staff it was about — reducing the numbers. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] Let me explain to Conservative Members who do not understand anything about the processes that — [AN HON. MEMBER: "Come to the question."] Certainly I will.
I hope the Paymaster General can answer my question. One of the questions to be put to the long-term unemployed is:
Can you start work today?
That is asked of someone who has been unemployed for a year, two years or three years. That person might say, "I cannot start today because I have promised to do this or that, but I can start in a couple of days if there is a job for me." What happens to that person?
He will be asked:
How far are you able to travel to work?
What happens if he says, "I used to have a car but as I have been unemployed for so long I cannot travel very far now."
He will be asked:
Do you have any adults or children to care for during working hours?
What happens to that man if he says, "One of the joys I have had of being unemployed is that I have seen more of my children and have cared for them. I care for them during the day but if there is a job available I can make other arrangements."
He will be asked:
What is the MINIMUM WEEKLY wage or salary (before deductions) you are willing to take?
Will the Paymaster General tell us the minimum that people must accept or face having their benefits cut?
I was not alive in the 1930s but generations of my family have passed on to me stories about the wickedness of the means test. Generations of today's unemployed will pass on the story of how this Government frightened people out of the unemployment figures instead of providing real jobs for them.

Mr. Clarke: It is certainly the case that when we have tested this new system we have found that over 3 per cent. of people, when faced with the card that tells them that they must be available for work and with the other questions, do not pursue their claims.
I have spoken to some of our staff who tell me that some people did not realise that one had to be available for work before claiming unemployment benefit. We have also found that there are others who, when they fill in the form make it clear that they are not available for work and they are disallowed benefit to which they are not entitled.
The hon. Lady tried to show what was wrong with the questions, especially those she cited. There is a question which states:
Can you start work today?
The answer is yes or no but, if the answer is no, one is asked to explain why and say when one would be available for work. If the answer was, "Because I need a day or two to make arrangements to stop doing what I am doing"—

Ms. Clare Short: They stop their money.

Mr. Clarke: No, they do not—of course they do not — [Interruption.]It appears that many hon. Members want to answer the question, but it is not especially complicated. The form is phrased in a way that allows people to explain why they cannot start work. If it is obvious that a person is not available on certain days, he is not entitled to benefit. That is the law that was restated by the Labour Government.
The form asks:
Do you have any adults or children to care for during working hours?
The person has to tick either the "Yes" box or the "No" box. If the answer is yes, the next question is
can you make IMMEDIATE arrangements for their care if you get a job?
If that person can make immediate arrangements, he is available for work and therefore entitled to benefit. However, if he proposed to stay at home and look after his children, which is a perfectly free choice, he would not be eligible for unemployment benefit. That has always been the case.
On the point about the wage that people want, the test is whether what they are seeking is reasonable in their circumstances and in the circumstances of the labour market where they live. People who will be disallowed are those who claim that they are available for work, but will accept only a minimum salary that is far above anything that they have earned before or could reasonably hope to earn, or above the going rate for the sort of jobs, for which they are suitably qualified, in the locality in which they live. That is not a change in the system—it is existing law. Parliament has always supported those rulings. The questions are clear, straightforward and not oppressive.
I challenge the Opposition to say whether they would withdraw these questions and simply return to one question that would give all the money to anybody who came through the door of the DHSS office.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise that this is a highly contentious matter. It is not possible for me to call every hon. Member who wishes to contribute. However, I have a list of those who I have not been able to call, and I shall give them preference when we return to this subject, as undoubtedly we shall.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the difficulties under which you operate, but is there no mechanism in this House whereby clandestine operations, like the one that has just been described to us, can be communicated to hon. Members whose constituencies are affected? Many of us have been under a great deal of pressure during the weekend because of the Government's proposals.

Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether there is a constituency in the country that this matter does not affect. It is clear that if every hon. Member was called we would not move on to the next subject of business for today, which is very important. I think that the whole House would agree that hon. Members wishing to take part in that debate have an equal right to the available time.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments. The Question is that the three instruments be referred—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I am trying to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Mr. Skinner: It is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not care—I am on my feet.
The Question is that the three instruments be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. As many as are of that opinion, say aye—

Mr. Powell: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Is there an objection?

Mr. Powell: I was hoping to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to put the motions separately so that it would be possible to object to one of them.

Mr. Speaker: I shall do so.
Ordered,
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 4) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 1352) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Malone.]
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft International Fund for Ireland (Immunities and Privileges) Order he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Mr. Powell: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman have the support of 20 hon. Members?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question, and it can be subject to Division if hon. Members so wish.

Question agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Highlands and Islands Development Board Area Extension Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Malone.]

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE

That European Community Documents Nos. 9453/83 on intra-Community trade in bovine and pig semen, 11403/85 on intra-Community trade in meat products, 6364/86, 6365/86 6366/86 and 6367/86 concerning draft proposals for a new approach to harmonisation in the field of foodstuffs and the draft proposals by the Commission of the European Communities described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 9th July 1986 on food flavourings, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents. — [Mr. Malone.]

Question agreed to

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a genuine point of order or a continuation of the previous questions?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is genuine, if you will allow me —[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] This will not take too long.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last Thursday there was an altercation in the House—to which I did not pay any special attention—when the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) walked out. Subsequently, there were a couple of points of order that petered out. I was not present yesterday to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raise a point of order requesting a personal statement about what the right hon. Member for Chingford had threatened in the House and then said outside. I have been looking at the different statements made both inside and outside the House. I am one of those who are quite prepared to follow the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Chingford and repeat outside what I say in here. I have always believed in that.
However, I have a problem. When the right hon. Member for Chingford stormed and flounced out —I make no point about that, because it is his business—he said, and I quote, "The witness approached Mitchell." Three hours later, he changed that to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. What the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said outside the Chamber is not a matter for me.

Mr. Skinner: I am coming to my point, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier, I was quite prepared to take on the right hon. Member for Chingford, but three hours after having made his statement outside the House, he changed it and said that in fact Mitchell had approached the witness. We need to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is saying outside the House. It would not be a bad idea if he came inside the House and made a personal statement. You can have a say in that, Mr. Speaker because a personal statement is not like a ministerial statement. If the right hon. Gentleman did that, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and others could challenge him. We want to know exactly what he means. Hon. Members could challenge him in the House and then I could challenge him outside, just as he cleverly suggested last Thursday. I think that it is important that the House has that statement before it.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to be called on the next debate, because many other hon. Members are.

Mr. Winnick: One of the problems that was pointed out yesterday — [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is the point of order?"] It is a point of order. As was pointed out yesterday, it is extremely difficult to question the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The right hon. Gentleman has made a provocative statement. I know that that has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair, but we


now believe that Tory Central Office was probably involved in a conspiracy. We are not in a position to question the chairman of the Conservative party because, although he is in the Cabinet, he answers questions only four times a year, for about five minutes each time.
I am not in any way bringing you into the dispute, Mr. Speaker, but it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted some responsibility by responding to the point of order last Thursday. It is said that Members of Parliament have the right to question Ministers in the House and should not demonstrate outside. However, on this issue we find ourselves in some difficulty. When will we have the opportunity to challenge the right hon. Gentleman on what he said last week so that we can demonstrate that it was not true?

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman—and he would he the first to realise this—that provocative statements are frequently made in Parliament. That is not new. I am not responsible for the Conservative party any more than I am responsible for the Labour or Alliance parties. This is not a matter for me and I cannot help the House. I must tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that is he wants to find out what the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) means, he had better do as he said and, in his own words, take him on.

Pig Slurry (Control)

Mrs. Elizabeth Shields: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the control of pig slurry and for connected purposes.
The Bill has three aims: to assist small and family farms with an interest in pigs, to monitor future developments in separate intensive industrial units, and last but not least, to provide safeguards for people and the countryside against pollution.
Pigs comprise approximately 25 per cent. of the national farm livestock, and it is interesting to note that these pigs are housed in about 7·5 per cent. of livestock holdings. Furthermore, a large proportion of the pig industry is concentrated in the eastern and north-eastern counties of England, with some 1·6 million pigs in Yorkshire and Humberside, 24 per cent. of the total in England and Wales.
Disposal of slurry is a major factor in the breeding, rearing and fattening of pigs. Current methods of disposal are varied and virtually every method has some disadvantages. Guidelines from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food state:
mechanical separation of slurry is generally carried out as a pre-treatment or conditioning stage. The act of separation does not improve or reduce odours. Its main purpose is to remove much of the coarse solid from the effluent.
I do not wish hon. Members to get too bogged down by this topic but detail of some methods is relevant to the subject. Some farmers have taken the initiative and installed equipment that separates out the larger solid particles so that it may be composted before being applied to the land. Unfortunately, the capital cost of providing the necessary plant is quite high, and is probably beyond the means of the smaller farms' resources.
Other farmers dispose of slurry using the traditional splash-plate tanker, which has the advantage of being a basic, simple design and therefore relatively easy to maintain. It operates quite fast and has comparatively low capital costs. Its main disadvantage is that it can often cause a public health nuisance.
Rain guns are the least favoured solution, as high-level spreading is likely to increase the risk of droplets being carried by the wind beyond the targeted area. This system is operated by pumping slurry under pressure through movable distribution pipes and spraying it high in the air. Under calm conditions, which are the optimum for all slurry disposal, a sampling of a rain gun's effects was found three quarters of a mile downwind. Under windy conditions, heavy bacterial pollution has been traced as far as five miles downwind
Bearing in mind that slurry should not be applied to land close to residential areas, a stipulation that may shortly be endorsed by law, this method constitutes not only a nuisance risk but an environmental hazard. It should probably be phased out over several years, when the existing equipment can be written off.
One of the latest and the most efficient methods is by injection. Here, the slurry is injected directly into the soil via pipes placed behind the coulter cutting blades. This method is extremely effective in controlling odour, its main disadvantage being the high cost of the equipment. I have observed the disposal of some 2,000 gallons of slurry by injection in a period of three minutes, and the method may be accurately summed up as " out of sight,


out of mind", for there is neither visible nor olfactory evidence of its existence. The only disadvantage apart from the cost of this method is that there are some types of soil for which injection is unsuitable.
Many farmers employ a solid manure system for their pigs. The latest figures from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service estimated that 660 kg of straw or other absorbent bedding material is needed per annum per bacon pig to retain all its waste products. The advantage of this method is a considerable reduction in smell, although it means that wherever possible there should be a regular cleaning out of pens. However, it is probably easier for the small pig farmer to dispose of pig manure in this solid form.
One of the chief disadvantages of slurry is its smell. All country dwellers accept the inevitability of certain smells associated with agriculture, but when they waft into more sensitive nostrils of the urban public, or unduly assail rural dwellers in their homes, then in England and Wales the law defines the interpretation as a form of a nuisance.
Under the Public Health Act 1936, the word "nuisance" is a fairly flexible one, permitting different interpretations in different places and at different times. The nuisance of slurry smell is of great concern because it has an all-pervasive odour that it would be a euphemism to describe as a "fresh country smell".
I recognise the nutrient value of slurry to the land, but the problems of pollution connected with its disposal are likely to increase with expansion in the relatively new industry of separate intensive pig production, especially when it is unrelated to the traditional husbandry of the land. In view of the possible loss of amenity from slurry disposal which is associated with a high density of pigs in any one area, it is essential that adequate land is available for spreading.
The Royal Commission's seventh report on agriculture and pollution made many recommendations, and drew conclusions that were submitted to the Government. Recommendation 46 states:
Intensive livestock units should be regarded as industrial enterprises.
This is of particular relevance where many separate pig units, which are in no way connected to a local farm, have been established as no planning permission is required for an agriculture building up to 5,000 sq ft. This means that there is often insufficient suitable land under an owner's control available for spreading slurry and if agreements with a local farmer are not possible, transportation to another area will be necessary.
The Ministry's aim is to achieve a practicable balance between the protection of the environment, especially from water pollution, and the economic production of food. Considerations of the need to avoid pollution of water courses

impose a limitation on the maximum rate at which manures may be safely spread on land.
In 1985, incidents of farm pollution from such causes as inadequate storage capacity, leaking or bursting stores, land run-off and so on, totalled 313. While this is a far lower number than that for pollution associated with cattle, for example, more advice and consultation would reduce the total to an even lower level.
Numerous local authorities, chiefly district and borough councils, have to deal with such agricultural problems. Many farmers have already responded to requests to improve their methods of slurry disposal, but the concomitant problems still make this a high priority. It is important that the whole matter be given due consideration, for the popularity with British families of pork, bacon and ham is likely, and quite rightly, to ensure that our pig industry continues to grow and prosper.
Guidelines to take account of the production, storage, transportation and disposal needs are required on a national scale and would help to clarify and facilitate these issues. To this end, my Bill proposes to set up a pig slurry advisory board, to which reference can be made in all matters relating to the above.
The board would co-ordinate the many sets of guidelines and recommendations that are in circulation from the Ministry, the National Farmers Union, the regional water authorities and local councils and, having regard to circumstances in different parts of the country, would seek to eliminate the existing irregularities and anomalies. The board would also have powers to give grants to defray costs of expensive equipment, especially for small or family farms unable to provide the necessary capital. Decisions concerning slurry in all its aspects would be referred to the advisory board. In the interests of the public generally, representation on the board would ensure a wide range of opinion and expertise from producer to consumer, with a sufficient number of members to protect the public interest.
The overall aims of the board would be to provide support and free advice for new entrants, as well as for those already in the industry, to consider the problems of environmental impact and repercussions and thus to work for the maintenance of good relations between farmers and other countryside dwellers.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in Mrs. Elizabeth Shields, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Richard Holt, Sir Russell Johnston and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

PIG SLURRY (CONTROL)

Mrs Elizabeth Shields accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the control of pig slurry and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

Deacons (Ordination of Women) Measure

5 pm

Sir William van Straubenzee (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Deacons (Ordination of Women) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: There is a great deal of interest in this Measure. I appeal to hon. Members, particularly as we have had such a late start, to make brief contributions.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I should like to express my appreciation of the fact that we are talking, although for a shorter time than we would wish, about these matters in what I think the media call prime time and not in the early hours of the morning. I express appreciation also for the petition in support of the Measure, which was so ably presented to the House and supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I shall seek to do my duty to the House and explain the Measure briefly. If I omit relevant points, perhaps the House will he forgiving.
The Measure, consisting of five sections and one schedule, is a simple one. It confers powers on the General Synod to make provision by canon for the ordination of women deacons. Section 2 confers a like power to end admission to the order of deaconesses, save, of course, those women already admitted. Section 3 has consequential pension provisions which I feel sure, whatever view it has of the Measure, the House will warmly approve. So that the matter may be clear and without any doubt, I draw attention to the specific provision in section 1(4):
Nothing in this Measure shall make it lawful for a woman to be ordained to the office of priest.
I commend the Measure on a number of grounds. It seems to be acknowledged by scholars—of course, as the House well knows, I certainly am not one—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I think that we were let off. In the early Church, the diaconate was open to men and women. That is well-documented. Members combined a service of community caring with leadership in Church worship. As recently as 1862, Bishop Tait's ordination of the first person to the office of deaconess was held to be a restoration of an ancient order. There is, therefore, historical continuity, which makes the office separate and distinct from any holy orders.
The 1978 Lambeth conference, and its predecessor, asked member churches which do not ordain women as deacons to take the necessary legislative and other steps to do so. The policy is already in operation in the Church in Wales. I understand that there are moves in this direction in the Scottish Episcopal Church and in the Church of Ireland. As part of its place in the Anglican communion, the Church of England is anxious to respond to this request.
I am grateful for the fact that the House is so comparatively full for a discussion of this matter, because sometimes outside the Chamber there is anxiety that it is no longer concerned about it. This is patently not so. Many hon. Members know that an increasing role is played by deaconesses of the Church of England, although they are lay women and not in one of the holy orders. They play a substantial role in public worship and in the general

life of the Church. Their role is almost identical to that of the deacons, alongside whom they work. They assist in worship, they are trained together, and very often they are either ordained or commissioned in the same service.
The major function which deaconesses cannot perform at present and which differentiates them from the deacons is officiation at a marriage. I suspect that the famous man or woman in the pew would be hard-pressed to say what the difference in function is. They are not clergymen within the definition laid down by the House, and cannot at the moment officiate at a wedding service. If the House, as I hope it will, assents to my motion, once the canon comes into force, they will be able to officiate at a marriage.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is it true that a male or female deacon may give a conditional blessing, but not a full blessing? I ask my hon. Friend to lay on the line, as I think he has done, that this is in no sense to be seen as a move towards the ordination of women. I say that, not to express a view, but because I think that that matter would create a deep schism in the Church, and the Church is not ready to consider it.

Sir William van Straubenzee: My hon. Friend is right on his first point. On his second point, 1 would not have been straightforward had I failed to draw attention to the fact that one effect of the Measure and the canon that goes with it is that women are to be admitted to the holy order of deacon. A deacon is a clergyman and, by the law of the land, because of Parliament's decision, a clergyman can officiate at a wedding.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does my hon. Friend agree that a deaconess is at present two steps away from the priesthood? She cannot officiate at a marriage ceremony and she cannot administer the holy sacrament. Is it the case that if the Measure is passed a deaconess will be only one step away from the priesthood?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The two facts given by my hon. Friend are, as the House knows, absolutely correct, but the point on which I part company from him, in a friendly way, is over a deaconess being so many steps away from this or that. The office of deacon— perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to say this more fully in a moment—is one of distinction in its own right. It ought not to be considered an automatic step in this or any other direction.

Mr. Frank Field: Would it help the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) to be reminded that, instead of thinking of steps towards the priesthood, should the Synod pass a Measure allowing women to become priests, the House would have to consider it separately from this one?

Sir William van Staubenzee: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. There can be no question of there being women priests in the Church of England without Parliament giving its assent to, I take it, a Measure broadly along the lines of this one. I want to concentrate on the Measure concerning women deacons. No legislation will come before this Parliament in relation to women priests.

Dame Jill Knight: The point is that many hon. Members see this as an inevitable halfway house towards the ordination of women into the priesthood. Will my hon. Friend confirm that when men become deacons, unless they act reprehensibly or in some way fall beneath the standard, they will inevitably become


priests, whereas no matter how exemplary the conduct of a woman who has become a deaconess, she cannot become a priest? How does my hon. Friend think the Equal Opportunities Commission will react to that?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I have been trying to deal with a technical but important point, which I know troubles some hon. Members, which was picked up by the Ecclesiastical Committee. However, in view of the questions put to me, I shall reverse the order of my remarks.
I accept and understand that for many people, both inside and outside the House, looming behind this issue is the question of the ordination of women to the priesthood. They use the thin edge of the wedge argument or the inevitability argument. It is true that it is normal practice for a male deacon to be moved to the priesthood. In the diocese of Portsmouth and elsewhere much thought has been given to this. There has been a study by the House of Bishops for a permanent diaconate for men. The status of a deacon is seen to have real point in the modern Church and there are a few, but only a few, who want it.
I think that I can best set the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) at rest by saying that it is impossible completely to remove a suspicion, but the House has in front of it, in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the voting figures of the General Synod on this matter. It is fair to say that the vote was overwhelming and to draw particular attention to the fact that at final approval, or as hon. Members would say, on Third reading, 36 bishops voted in favour and none against. For example, there were more votes against in the other two Houses, but they are not substantial and they are set out.
It is inconceivable that in the General Synod many people who, to my certain knowledge, are completely opposed to the ordination of women as priests, did not have in their minds the point which my hon. Friend fairly made. They were satisfied that the matter could stand on its own. However, if I am pursued and told, as I sometimes am, that the General Synod is a totally unrepresentative place—a charge which I reject—I can point out that this Measure and the canon were referred to 44 diocesan synods and that 42 of them approved. I am entitled to persuade the House that at what I can legitimately call grass roots, persons who unquestionably feel strongly that women should not be ordained as priests, nevertheless see the Measure as separate and distinct and as a step which ought to be taken on its own merits.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures in the report show clearly that the overwhelming majority of the Synod are in favour of this Measure? Does he not agree that that shows that this is a matter which ought to be left to the Church? I speak as an Anglican, because I get upset when I come into the House of Commons and find that all sorts of people who are not members of my Church are discussing and voting on issues which relate to my Church. I object strongly to that.
It is time that these matters were settled by the Synod of the Anglican Church. Ultimately this means disestablishment, which is necessary for the Church. The figures in the report underline my point that we ought not to be discussing this matter. It should be settled by the

Synod, and if the Synod wishes to go further and ordain women as priests—with which I agree—that ought to be done.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Whatever else is in this Measure, there is nothing in it about the disestablishment of the Church of England. We must deal with the situation as it actually is.
I understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer). However, as he is a fair-minded man I am sure that he will not want to imply that that is the generally accepted view of the Synod. The General Synod both understands and has pride in the fact that in many instances it must come to Parliament for approval of its Measures, with the comparatively recent exceptions of worship and doctrine. I would not wish to leave the House, especially those who are opposed to this Measure, feeling that there is resentment on the part of the General Synod, because that does not exist.
My final point is narrower, but equally important. I am sorry to take up time, but I think that the House expects it of me. The Ecclesiastical Committee noted a difference which it felt ought to be exposed, and its report ably deals with this matter. At present a prayer is said at the ordination of a deacon, who must by definition be a man, which is generally known as the collect for the higher ministries. It foreshadows that a deacon may proceed to the priesthood. The rubric introducing it says that it "shall" be used. The Ecclesiastical Committee pointed out a conflict between this direction and the statement in the Measure, to which I have drawn attention, about the inapplicability of it to women as priests.
Therefore, the General Synod listened to the Ecclesiastical Committee. I am sometimes told that the General Synod does not listen enough, so I hope that on this occasion at least we shall get marks for having listened. The Synod amended the canon to provide an alternative rubric. This does not alter the prayer, but it does alter the rubric if it is a woman deacon who is being ordained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who always adds such great intellectual weight to our debates, has asked me to explain to the House that he is unavoidably absent abroad. This is unusual for him. He has authorised me, as the person who led this point in the Ecclesiastical Committee, to say that he acknowledges that this change has been made at the request of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and on this point his reservations have been removed.
With the exception of conducting a marriage service, a deaconess in the Church of England today performs the same functions as a deacon. Many feel that where women perform the same functions as men they should have the same status. That is a matter separate and distinct from any question of the ordination of women as priests. Supporters of the Measure include persons who have strong views hostile to the ordination of women as priests. Surely it is out of keeping with a 1986 view of women that they should be accorded a status inferior to men, that they can only join a lay order and that they are denied the special grace of being in one of the holy orders. It is in that spirit that I commend the Measure to the House.

Mr. Tony Benn: This is an important debate because it raises far wider issues than the one raised


by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) in presenting the Measure. We are, as Parliament, first responsible—apart from our relationship to the Church of England, to which I shall refer—for the rights of women in Britain. We are also bound to consider, because the Measure deals with it, the attitude of the Anglican Church towards women. But also, necessarily, because of the nature of the Measure, we are hound to consider the legislative relationship of the Church to Parliament and, inevitably, the issue of the establishment of the Church. I want to touch briefly on some of those questions.
The campaign for the full ordination of women in the Church of England is not a new one but a very old one indeed. It was 70 years ago that Maude Royden sought permission to be ordained. It was refused and she became an assistant at the City temple in London, where she continued to preach until her death.
In the same year, 1916, Constance Coltman was the first woman to be ordained as a Congregational minister and she practised as a minister. The ordination of women since then has spread over a wide number of denominations.
I must admit to the House a long family interest in and connection with the ordination of women. In 1920 my mother, now in her 90th year, joined the League of Church Militant, the name of the organisation then seeking the full ordination of women. She was summoned to Lambeth palace in 1926 by Archbishop Randall Davidson and told that it was impossible that women could ever be ordained into the priesthood. Following that came the Anglican Group for the Ordination of Women, which continued to argue the case, then the Society for the Ministry of Women in the Church, of which Bishop Montefiori was the Anglican chairman and my mother was once the Free Church president. Now we have the Movement for the Ordination of Women, which has been arguing the case in the Synod.
I would go further. During the war the Reverend Lee Tim Oi. a Chinese woman, was ordained by Bishop Hall of Hong Kong because in wartime circumstances nobody else could administer the sacrament in his diocese. It is to the eternal disgrace of the Church of England that after the war it threatened to withdraw its financial support from the Church in China unless the Reverend Lee Tim Oi resigned, which she did. She visited Britain a little while ago.
Meanwhile, other denominations accepted women as ministers. If 1 may be allowed one other family reference, 40 years ago this year my father, as Secretary of State for Air, appointed the first woman chaplain to the Forces, a Congregationalist, the Reverend Elsie Chamberlain, much against the opposition of the then Archbishop of Canterbury. When the Air Force list was printed he found, to his rage, that his officials had listed her as a welfare officer. He had the Air Force list pulped and reissued showing her as a full chaplain in order to establish that the rights of women could not be dismissed in that way.
Since then, Anglicans have accepted the ordination of women in other countries. There are women priests in the United States of America and the Episcopalian Church in Australia. They have been considering the appointment of a woman bishop in the United States and it is not impossible that at the next Lambeth conference the

Anglican community will have to receive a woman bishop as a full member of that conference and the Archbishop of Canterbury will have to receive her in that capacity.

Mr. Frank Field: What about the Measure that we are debating?

Mr. Benn: If my hon. Friend will be patient with me, these matters need to be put upon the records of Parliament.
The only churches that do not acccept the ordination of women in England are the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, and the Church of England in England. It is only the Church of England that resists the matter.
It is not for me, for a reason that I shall come to in a moment, to go in detail into the argument within the Church of England, beyond saying that the Bishop of London has played a wretched role and was recently censured in the Church for his intervention in a parish in the United States. He has stirred up prejudice against women in an established church which, I might add, is presided over by a monarch who is a woman, where the bishops are appointed by a Prime Minister who is a woman. Yet the hon. Member for Wokingham begs the House to believe that under no circumstances under the Measure, and he is correct, could a woman become a priest. That is the background against which we have to discuss the matter.
There has always been prejudice and obscurantism in relation to women's matters, but there is much sympathy. Everybody is always sympathetic to the principle—but not now. That was the way in which the House discussed the women's vote and now we are invited today to vote for a Measure that explicitly makes it unlawful for a woman to be a priest, and that has to be taken into account.
One of the factors — I can only say this from observing the scene—that leads the Church to object to the ordination of women is a fear of prejudicing reunion with Rome, although there is an Alliance for St. Joan in the Catholic Church and, judging from the speed with which the Catholic Church has moved on many matters, it is not inconceivable that it will ordain women before the Church of England gets round to it. But that is a matter for speculation.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: rose—

Mr. Benn: I have very little time, and I am being non-controversial, so I shall not give way.
It is against that background that we are invited to examine this puny little Measure. Of course, for women who believe that progress step by step is better than nothing, they may say that when they are deacons they will be a step nearer to becoming priests. But, as the hon. Member for Wokingham made clear, and as paragraph 1(4) makes clear, the opposite is the case. Section 1(4) of the Measure makes it clear that
Nothing in this Measure shall make it lawful for a woman to be ordained to the office of priest.
Therefore, I can well understand the attitude of those women who believe that this is a gain and that the House should vote for it because it is a step forward. However, I hope that those who take that view will accept that the argument used to get it through will be that it is the very opposite. Not only is it the very opposite for women, but now we are told that there may be a new type of male


deacon who will never go any further. We are creating a special class of second-class men to go along with the second-class women in the Church of England.
The opposition to the Measure that we will have in full force in the course of the debate highlights the central question—the absurdity, drawn out by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)— that Parliament, the Members of which do not have to be Anglicans or even Christians, has the final word in deciding whether women should be deacons, priests or bishops in the Church of England. It is absurd for the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who is a member of the Synod, having lost in the Synod, where at least he is surrounded by members of his own denomination, to appeal to Parliament, where anybody could be Catholic, Jewish, Sikh, Muslim or humanist, to defeat that Measure. That is what makes the establishment of the Church of England unacceptable.
The political control of the Church is a total anachronism. Over the years there has been quite properly a distancing between the Synod and Parliament and a greater formalisation of our relationship. But it is the Prime Minister who appoints the bishops. Anyone who has read the recent scandalous stories about the Archbishop of Canterbury must know that it was hoped that he would resign because of those stories, to pave the way for a more acceptable archbishop appointed by the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I give that as my opinion. If the Archbishop could be forced to resign, the Prime Minister could appoint a more acceptable Archbishop. That is why the Conservative party, which believes in privatising everything, but keeping the Church of England—

Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not unacceptable for the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to stray so very wide of the Measure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was about to reproach the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for straying away from the Measure.

Mr. Benn: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not the first time that I have made this point. I spoke about it on the Bishops (Retirement) Measure. This issue on which we are asked to decide highlights the manifest absurdity that Parliament should have any rights in the matter. If any hon. Member were to suggest that establishment is so successful that we should nationalise the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church and the Jews, people would say that it was a gross abuse of spiritual freedom and they would be right.
We are a nation of many religions and of none. This House is a Parliament of many religions and of none and the time has come to complete the steady progress of separation between the Church of England and Parliament. When the new Session begins, I intend to introduce a Bill based upon the Welsh church—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will leave his speech on that matter until the new Session, if he should then catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I hope that we can return to the Deacons (Ordination of Women) Measure, from which we seem to have strayed.

Mr. Benn: It would not be the first time that matters on the relationship between Church and state have aroused controversy in the House and interventions from the Chair—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to keep interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that those matters will not be discussed during the debate on this Measure, in which many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Benn: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but no objection was raised when I made a similar point on the Bishops (Retirement) Measure a few months ago—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was not in the Chair on that occasion. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stick to this matter.

Mr. Benn: I abide by your ruling, M r. Deputy Speaker, but I must say that Members of this House have no moral right to vote on this Measure. I cannot vote against it because it represents a tiny step forward, although it is also an entrenchment of a law designed to see that that step cannot lead further. I cannot vote for it for the reason I have given.
Historically, all gains by women and all gains of progress in religious freedom have been achieved when people did something, not when they pleaded, as women have done for 80 years or more, with bishops, parliamentarians and the Synod to listen to them. If women wish to be ordained as priests in the Church of England, they must be ordained abroad or invite people who have been ordained abroad to preach here, as happened with the recent service in Church house in Westminster.
I am fully committed to women's right to be priests and bishops in the Church of England. I deny Parliament's right to prevent that from happening. Women who want that right must follow the course of the suffragettes and others who fought for their rights. Only that course will create the circumstances in which women can enjoy their full rights within the Church.

Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has widened this debate considerably and not uninterestingly. However, we do not have much time for the debate. Will you rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the House is considering the ordination of women to the diaconate, not the ordination of women to the priesthood? Will you narrow the debate to that specific point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have heard my reproach to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will bear that in mind when speaking in the debate.

Mr. John Stokes: I listened with fascination to the fairly long speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). As someone who opposes this Measure, I found that speech a great support and help. Some months ago, when I first considered the matter, I was in favour of it, but in recent months I have reached the considered opinion that it is a dangerous Measure and it is the House's duty to oppose it by exercising its judgment, which is its constitutional right.
Hon. Members are a sort of longstop to the General Synod, to which I belong. In some ways, we more truly represent the man and woman in the pew than do some of the activists of the Synod who are not, as we are, elected by direct suffrage but who are elected indirectly. The House is usually at its best when discussing ecclesiastical Measures. Many non-Anglicans and, indeed, non-Christians are most anxious to try to be helpful and to do the best that they can for the Church of England. Church and state, if no longer one in England, are certainly closer than some people believe.
The voting in the Synod was heavily in favour of the Measure. However, the fundamentals of Christian doctrine cannot be established by mere majority voting. Surely in the Church of' England, as in the entire Catholic church, scripture and tradition are our only guides. If we approve this Measure, we shall be sending out a signal from this House to all England and to the Anglican communion throughout the world that this is but one stage in the process of the ordination of women as priests. In the discussion in the Ecclesiastical Committee, Earl Waldegrave and others made the same point.
The Measure will not necessarily create women priests eventually, but the general public do not read the small print. They, especially those who read the popular papers, will believe that after the Measure is passed it will only be a question of time before women can become priests. That would be a serious step which would have to be approved by the entire Catholic Church in a general council. It would also cause a fearful split in the Church of England, as it has done already in the Episcopal Church in the United States and elsewhere. It might fatally injure the Church.
In saying that, I am not opposed to women in general of women in public life. Everyone with a knowledge of church history must know the tremendous part that women have played in the Christian story. Furthermore, I fully recognise the value of the work done by deaconnesses. I also salute those women such as our Prime Minister— [Laughter.] — who have attained the highest positions in the land. But the diaconate and the priesthood are quite different; they are not secular appointments. We all know that women are different from, and complementary to, men. But I have found some of the pressure groups that are in favour of the priesthood of women extremely distasteful. Ecclesiastical politics should not be as rough as secular politics, and should not use the same pressure group techniques.
Finally, the Church of England must get back to basic Christianity: to preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, helping people to ask for forgiveness for their sins, and to teaching us all how to pray. Both in the House and in the Synod we spend a lot of time on less important matters, such as this measure, or even conditions in the Third world, South Africa or the atom bomb. We need a new John Keble to preach a new Assize sermon before the Church of England, if it goes on proposing changes so quickly, completely vanishes from the land, with churches left empty and the people of England engulfed in heathenism, looking up but not being fed.
As an addendum, I must point out that a change in a collect in the ordination service in the Book of Common Prayer will prove necessary if the Measure is passed. That book has already almost vanished from the Church's services and is available, in my experience, in only about

one in six parishes. If this Measure is passed, I wonder how many more changes to the Book of Common Prayer will follow.
I hope that hon. Members' wisdom, common sense and experience will lead us to reject this Measure. I believe that it would drag the Church of England, which we all love so much, further into the Slough of Despond.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a personal interest in this Measure, as I am a member of the Church of England by baptism, but a member of the Church in Wales by confirmation, and so, arguably. I have experience of both.
As the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) made clear, the overwhelming view of the parliament of the Church of England was that this Measure should be supported. It met with no opposition in the House of Bishops and gained more than 80 per cent. support in the synod as a whole. No one has argued that a principle of scripture applies to this debate. However, there is a historical principle, which is that, as the hon. Member for Wokingham said, when the Church began there was a diaconate that included both men and women. Thus historical continuity is perhaps the firmest rock for arguing in favour of this Measure. Indeed, I believe that, as a result, it is impossible to resist the request made to us.
But there is another argument, which was put to the Committee by the Bishop of Rochester and others. That argument is that changes in society mean that there is a pragmatic reason for granting this request. On page 16 of the minutes, the bishop said:
Thirdly, this Measure must be seen against the background of quite drastic changes taking place in the total ministry of the church. When I became a bishop 25 years ago I had 100 more clergy than today but I had only three deaconesses, no women readers and no laity of either sex authorised to assist at Holy Communion. Today, I have 23 deaconesses, nearly 50 women readers and about 200 of the 600 laity authorised by me annually to assist at Communion are women.
An increasing number of women participate in the Church, so there is increasing pressure from women who feel called to participate in its ministry. As page 6 of the report says:
It is quite out of keeping with contemporary views of the position of women in society that where men and women are performing virtually identical functions the women should be accorded a status inferior to that of the men.
In theological and spiritual terms, women who cannot be ordained as deacons are denied the concomitant privilege of being in holy orders with the special grace that that may confer.
The Christian principles of tolerance and justice should lead us to accept this Measure. Behind the debate lies the question whether such a Measure would make more likely the ordination of women to the priesthood. But all hon. Members know that our procedures and those of the Church mean that the two issues have taken parallel but different courses. It would be wrong to allow one's adjudication of this Measure to be influenced by what might happen.
Certain things are fundamental, and certain things change. There is an awkward theological debate about whether the ordination of women to the priesthood raises a fundamental issue or merely reflects a change. As a result of the Pauline attitude to women and the teaching of St. Paul, that is a very difficult argument. I can see no


theological reason against women becoming priests. However, the Church has made it clear that that argument should not be adduced today. As the hon. Member for Wokingham said, well-known senior members of the Church of England have made it clear that they are against the ordination of women to the priesthood but are happy to vote for this Measure.
It has taken a long time for this provision to reach the House. The committee set up by the Lambeth conference recommended to it in 1920 that this Measure should be taken. It took another 58 years, until the Lambeth conference in 1978, for the conference to resolve that such a step should be taken. As we have heard, the Church in Wales took the same step in 1980, and the Episcopal Church in Ireland and Scotland is well on its way. Progress has been slow, and even in very recent history, there have been delays. I do not criticise that, but it has been frustrating.
People have written to me, and no doubt to other hon. Members, reminding me how disappointed women will be if the measure does not succeed. Women who have been working as deaconesses and who have been doing the same work as their male counterparts in all but one material respect will be very disappointed if the House says that the status appropriate to what they do is not available to them. After all, they feel called to do their work.
The report makes it clear that there are also practical considerations. Men and women who train for work in the Church as deacons and deaconesses now train in the same theological colleges. That was not so 20 or 30 years ago. They have similar functions, and the number of men and women involved is much more equal.
As the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) said, a change will have to be made to a collect, because at present it suggests that ordination as a deacon automatically leads to ordination as a priest. That would have to go. That is the clear implication, if we are creating, as Portsmouth diocese has pioneered, a new tier of people who will remain deacons. We have created a new tier of lay workers or non-stipendiary ministers, and the Church is always seeking to expand the number of those working in its ministry.
Most important, it would be a gross abuse of the rights and authority that this House has over the Church if it told women that they were to be deprived of equal treatment, especially as the House is even more dominated by men than the General Synod is. Historically, it is accepted that women in the Church can be deacons.
This is a measure whose time has well and truly come. We must remind people that if they are afraid that precipitate moves in the other direction might split the Church, so there is a terrible fear among those of us who are concerned for the Church as a whole, that to deprive a large number of women who feel called will also weaken the Church in its own way.
If we are about maximising the ability of men and women to preach the gospel of love and justice — the Christian gospel—we must maximise the contribution of as many people as possible. To deprive women of equal status to do that would weaken the Church and reduce in number and in commitment the forces of those who are seeking, with status and authority, training, dedication and vocation, to bring about the Kingdom of God here on earth.
I hope that the measure will be overwhelmingly supported.

Mr. Michael Latham: I come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Politicians are often accused of speaking in code—of talking energetically about one subject when thinking about another. Leaving aside examples nearer home, a classic example of that was when Chairman Mao turned his fire on Confucius, who had been dead 2,500 years, to launch the cultural revolution. The same argument is true of this Measure. The argument has nothing to do with the ordination of women deacons, but everything to do with section 1(4) of the Measure. It is like the skirmish of Fort Sumter before the great conflicts of Shiloh and Gettysburg. My analogy of civil war — and American civil war at that — was deliberately picked. No one will appreciate the topical reference to that more than the Bishop of London.
Those who wish to block the Measure are really concerned about women priests, or even women bishops. That is the truth and everyone in the House knows it. It is the classic wedge principle argument, which was clearly articulated in the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The House should refuse to break that code and should solemnly take the Church at its word. Both the Bishop of Rochester and the secretary-general of the Synod urged the Ecclesiastical Committee to accept the measure on its merits rather than to see it as a Trojan horse from which would jump an army of priestesses to divide the Church of England.
If it is seen on its own, there is an unanswerable case for the House to pass the Measure tonight.
First, the Measure presents no theological problem. As a High Churchman, I sought the guidance of two very senior bishops in the Catholic wing of the Chruch. Both confirmed to me that there were no theological objections to the ordination of women to the diaconate and that no bishops opposed the measure. Both bishops are strongly opposed to women priests. Speaking as an Anglican, I respect the guidance of bishops on matters of order and doctrine. It is to those who stand in the apostolic succession that an ordinary Christian must look for guidance on the Catholic faith, rather than to majority votes in the General Synod.
It is plain from the early history of the Church that women undertook this service of physical and spiritual support. Although the first seven deacons were men, Paul's Letter to the Romans refers to Phebe as a fellow Christian who held office as a deacon in the congregation at Cenchreae. The actual words are "Ousan Diakonon Tes Ekklesias" — being a deacon in the Church. The author of the First Letter to Timothy, be it Paul himself or one of his disciples, equates equally the conduct of deacons and their wives. Some readings of that text when translated use the word "deaconess", as a footnote in the New English Bible puts it.

Mr. Tony Banks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reference, but what about Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, which seems to challenge the point?

Mr. Latham: The hon. Gentleman must give the reference.

Mr. Banks: I refer to chapter XIV, verse 34.

Mr. Latham: I think that the position of Phebe is quite clear—being a deacon in the Church. That is sufficient evidence.
At a meeting in this building last week, I asked the Archbishop of York if ordaining women to the diaconate would cause any problems with Rome. He assured me that it would not. Pope John Paul himself has made it clear that the ordination of women priests would he a major stumbling block, but since Rome unfortunately still regards all Anglican orders as invalid through defect of intention, perhaps that should not be our most immediate worry.
There are no serious practical objections. To all intents and purposes, deaconesses already carry out all the functions of deacons except marriage, which deacons hardly ever carry out anyway. They can conduct funerals. They can, of course, baptise —any layman can do that—and they can take any service except communion.
The Bishop of Rochester told the Committee that in 25 years the number of lay people authorised by him to administer the chalice at communion had risen from none to 600, of whom 200 are women.
As a layman, and not even licensed as a reader, I have a certificate of authorisation from the bishop of my diocese to administer the chalice, and I am likely to undertake that great duty at least twice before the end of this year. If I can do that without any formal training, surely it is reasonable that a man and a woman who have received identical and lengthy training at a theological college as deacon and deaconess, and who will in practice carry out the same duties after the bishop has laid his hands upon them, should be treated equally in canon law.
The truth is that the Church needs all its human resources, both clergy and laity. There are no serious objections to allowing women to be ordained as deacons. Having said that, and believing that the House should allow the Measure to pass, I must add that I am not impressed with some of the defensive arguments which have been used in its favour. Certainly, I see very little prospect of a permanent male diaconate, or any obvious point in it, despite the talk about experiments in Portsmouth and so on. Equally, those who say that the Church should sort out whether it wants a permanent diaconate before ordaining women as deacons are in practice asking for indefinite deferment. I doubt whether the Church has the slightest intention of seriously addressing that issue directly. It will be left, I am sure, to the decisions of individual bishops and individual candidates for ordination as deacon.
Some men may, indeed, decide to stay as deacons, but I cannot see why there should be any hard and fast rules about that. A man may initially have intended to remain a deacon, but if he feels the strong call to the full ministry of priesthood, assuming that he is suitable, I cannot envisage a bishop refusing to ordain him priest after the normal examination. I cannot see any prospect of deliberately creating a permanent male diaconate just to balance the women deacons. What would be the point of it? Certainly it would have no theological virtue.
Obviously there are women in the Church, and indeed men, who hope that this Measure will be the first step towards women priests. But they may be disappointed. There is certainly no guarantee that such a Measure will command the necessary majority in the Church for it to be presented to the House. That would he a very different

step from what we are being asked to do tonight. To a significant body of opinion in the Church, that would be a major theological impediment.
It is worth remembering that these are issues about which committed Christians feel very strongly indeed. On matters of faith, Christians throughout 2,000 years have followed the words of the Apostle Peter—we ought to obey God rather than man. I do not believe that the General Synod or this House has the unilateral power to change the order of priesthood which belongs to all Catholic and orthodox Christendom. I believe that a major issue of faith and order of that kind can be settled only by inter-Church agreement and preferably by a general council of the Church. That is how all the greatest issues have been resolved by Christians and how the Holy Spirit led the Fathers of Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon to define the doctrine of the Trinity itself. While that might seem an impossible or visionary suggestion for divided Christendom, there has been 30 much progress in recent years that no one should rule out a great step of that kind.
We can all recall the Pope and Dr. Runcie praying together in Canterbury cathedral four years ago. Who would have dreamt 25 years ago that that would even be possible? The Emperor Constantine was not even baptised when he summoned and personally presided over the Council of Nicaea. It is doubtful that he was ever really a believing Christian. His successor was an Arian, and he in his turn was followed by Julian the Apostate.
It was through such unpromising material at that time, however, that the doctrine of the Trinity was defined. Who are we to say that the mind of the entire Church cannot similarly be discovered in God's good time, which may not be very long? Men and women no longer kill one another over whether the Greek letter iota occurs in a Greek word, but that does not mean that devout Christians do not feel strongly about their faith. The nuns and priests who went to the Nazi gas chambers in place of others were showing that the Holy Spirit is still stronger than man's cruelties and barbarities. We can and must avoid the dangers of yet more splits in Christendom.
Women have waited for 2,000 years before being called to the Christian priesthood. If it is God's will that they should be so called and thereby to the episcopate as well, we can all ponder and pray a little longer until this great matter can be resolved by the Church as a whole. It is not for the Anglian Synod or for the House, in my view, to force the pace. It is worth remembering one of the few rabbinical sayings in the New Testament attributed to Rabban Gamaliel, which is as follows:
If this idea of theirs or its execution is of human origin, it will collapse; but if it is from God, you will never be able to put these men down, and you risk finding yourselves at war with God.
No harm will be done to the unity of the Church or its doctrine and order by letting this Measure pass. We should do so, however, on the very conditions which the Church itself has offered—that women deacons are appropriate and right, but that the issue of women priests remains to be resolved.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Unlike the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). who intervened in his speech, I do not believe that the House is called upon to


resolve any profound issues of theology or to investigate the relevance of the early history of the Church. I think that we are called upon to exercise the function of a legislature; the legislature for the time being perhaps of the Church of England, but still a legislature with a duty to make sound law and law which achieves only the intended purpose and the purpose that is desired by those who put it forward. It is on that ground, and not without assistance from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that I would argue that it would be right for the House not to pass this Measure.
In accordance with both the wording and the rubric of the ordinal on which clerks in holy orders are ordained, it is made clear that the order of deacon is a prelude to the priesthood. There is no doubt about that, and that is clear in the wording of the Prayer Book. There is a general feeling, which has been referred to already, that that link of a diaconate with the other holy orders is to a large extent, and increasingly, obsolete, and that it would be right for men and women to be able to perform on equal terms in the Church those offices that are associated with the title of deacon or deaconess, and to do so without any commitment or necessary connection with the intention or likelihood of proceeding to be priested.
If such a Measure were proposed, I would feel that it should be accepted and would heartily agree with it. The fact is, however, that the General Synod has not proceeded in that way. It has not produced for our consideration a Measure which creates a new diaconate separated deliberately from the rest of holy orders and a diaconate in which, as is right and proper, women and men may be on an equal basis. Instead, it has proceeded in an entirely different way by seeking authorisation for women to become deacons, of which the meaning and significance is unambiguous, which means that they thereby become clerks in holy orders.
Like most hon. Members, I have studied with great care the report by which we are assisted from the Ecclesiastical Committee. I think that everyone who has done so must be impressed by the anxieties that were felt by the minority, who remained unable to recommend the Measure to the House, as well as by the circumstances in which the Committee as a whole brought itself to do so. I want to refer to the condition by which the rest of the Committee — the majority within it — consented with obvious reluctance to commend the Measure to the House. This was that the General Synod should itself approve a canon which would alter the Prayer Book and thereby alter the worship and doctrine of the Church of England.
If we pass this Measure on the basis of an assurance that the law of the Church of England will be altered by canon, we are in effect illicitly devolving the legislative function of the House in relation to the Church of England in a way which was not envisaged 12 years ago when the worship and doctrine Measure was passed.
The issue of the priesting of women is one which has not been resolved by the Church of England. Indeed, during the period in which the Measure before us was in gestation there was observable a considerable change of pace, if not of heart, in the General Synod. It seems incumbent upon us, therefore, not now to put on the statute book of the Church of England a Measure of which

the clear and logical implication is that it shows an intention to proceed to the admission of women to the order of priesthood.
After all, if we pass this Measure, what is the answer to the question, "Why, rather than permit the Church of England to have an order of deacons unconnected with the priesthood, pass a Measure which specifically makes it possible for women to be admitted to the order of deacon?" We should be obliged to recognise that in doing that by implication we have passed a Measure which decides by a side wind a major, fundamental and far-reaching issue which the Church itself has not decided and on which it has made no request to the House.
The time may come when we shall have before us a Measure which directly addresses itself to the question which I have posed. In the meantime, I think that we should do wrong by the Church of England, by the people of the Church of England, by the General Synod and by our function as legislators if we passed a Measure which by implication abridged the debate which has not yet been concluded, and by implication reached a decision which is not before us to take. I hope that we shall not do that this evening.

Mr. Roger Sims: The House has been invited to approve a Measure which has already been approved by the Synod, but it has not come straight from the Synod to the House. I remind the House, as we have just been reminded by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), that the Measure has been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee. That is not a Committee which has an especially high profile in this place, and perhaps it is as well to remind ourselves that it is a somewhat unusual body in that it is a Committee of both Houses. The House might he aware that 15 members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor— those are Members of the other place—and 15 members are appointed from this House by Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the Committee is to examine carefully the Measures that are passed by the Synod and presented for Parliament's approval.
It has been my privilege over the past few years to be a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. In the short time that I have been a member of it I have been impressed by the attention which it gives to Measures and the diligence with which it approaches its work. It spends a good deal of time examining each Measure carefully and, having done so, and if it is not entirely content with that which is involved, it notifies representatives of the Synod to appear before it to be cross-examined in as effective a manner as any witness is cross-examined before a Select Committee. In this instance representatives of the Synod, led by the Lord Biship of Rochester, were cross-examined most carefully about the intentions and thinking behind this Measure.
One result of that cross-examination was the comments in paragraph 7 on page 4 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) has already referred. As a result of our discussions an undertaking was given that the collect that comes at the end of the service would not be used when women were being ordained as deacons so as to remove any possible doubt whatsoever as to the intention of this Measure. In this respect—here I take up the point made by the right hon. Member for South Down—the closing words of paragraph 7 state:


It is a point to which the Committee attach considerable importance and their opinion that the Measure is expedient is given on the assumption that this modification to the draft canon will be made.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham is responding to the debate, perhaps he will give us that assurance, as that change does not appear in the schedule. I understand that it will come subsequently.
As a result of the most careful examination, the Ecclesiastical Committee has recommended that the Measure is expedient. It was not a decision reached with reluctance, as the right hon. Member for South Down implied. There were certainly one or two reservations among individual members, but it was a clear decision reached by the Committee after the most careful consideration.
Of course this House and the other place have the last word, but I suggest that the House should not lightly overturn a conclusion of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which studied this matter most carefully on its behalf.
The issues of priests and deacons are very definitely separate. That has been said not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and the synod but by others including the Bishop of London whose views on the ordination of women as priests are very clear. He has indicated that he is in favour of this Measure. The Roman Catholic Church has made it clear that if women became ordained priests in the Church of England that could erect a substantial barrier towards closer relations between the two Churches, but to the best of my knowledge it has raised no objection to this Measure.
After all, what arc we talking about? The fact is that both deacons and deaconesses play an important and increasing part in the affairs of the Church. As has already been said, the only difference between deacons and deaconesses is that the latter cannot perform marriages simply because of the wording of the Marriage Act.
Women deacons would acquire no new functions or jurisdiction other than the one that I have just mentioned, but their status would be comparable with that of a male deacon. They still cannot proceed to the holy order of priests. They can remain deacons as males may remain deacons. As has already been said, there are increasing steps towards the idea of permanent male deacons who in my view could perform an extremely useful service in the church.
All this must be apparent to the man in the pew if he simply examines the facts that I have summarised. But what will it look like to the woman in the pew if this Measure is lost? To put it mildly, it will look like a studied, calculated slight. Although the synods of the dioceses support the Measure by an overwhelming majority; although the bishops support it unanimously; although this policy has applied in the Church in Wales for the past five years; although increasing reliance is placed on deaconesses to hold the parishes together; and although women greatly outnumber men in the congregations, it is being suggested that the admission of women to the order of deacons is to be banned simply because they are women.
If this Measure is lost tonight the reputation of deaconesses will certainly not suffer, but the reputation of this House will.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I am glad to have the opportunity for a few minutes only of contributing to the

debate, particularly as I am a woman Member of Parliament and, after all, the debate is about the ordination of women.
In May this year I had the pleasure and honour of sponsoring an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall entitled, "What are Women doing in the Church of England". I see from the nods opposite that some Conservative Members may have looked at that exhibition and benefited from it. I found it most rewarding.
The exhibition sought to make a contribution to the process of breaking down the stereotyped images of women that persist both inside and outside the Church of England. For many people the image of the Church remains that of a male-dominated institution with women — as they do in other walks of life — carrying out traditional servicing tasks such as flower arranging, cutting the sandwiches and making the tea. As with so many other areas of life, women in the Church fulfil those basic and essential tasks.
In addition, however, they are also fulfilling the role of deaconesses as full-time parish workers and church social workers. We must emphasise the very real contribution that deaconesses are making in that way. There are women as hospital, prison, college and even armed services' chaplains. In fact, the number of women offering themselves and being selected for the ministry has doubled over the past 10 years.
In common with women in every sphere, women in the Church of England bring their own strengths and wisdom to their work. Sadly, in common with women everywhere, their contribution is often undervalued, unrecognised or, at worst, rejected. The debate that has been aroused by women seeking ordination as deacons in the Church of England has mirrored the many historic struggles that women have waged over the years, and the prejudice and hostility that has been expressed by some who oppose this Measure has also been evident at every stage of women's long march towards the very modest goal of equality.
Equality is a concept that women have been forced to extract bit by bit — from the removal of women's common law status as minors, to the right to enter the universities and the professions, the Married Women's Property Act, the vote, the right to stand for election and the right to equal pay for work of equal value. Every right had been fought for by women for women, and nothing has ever been given without a fight. We are still struggling to eradicate injustice against women, and I am proud to be part of that struggle.
Each small triumph for women has, then as now, been accompanied by dire warnings of the consequences for women and men—indeed, for society as men believe they see it—that will result from such challenges to the so-called "natural order". It is truly amazing that so little regard is given to the profoundly offensive and deeply wounding effect that such remarks have upon women—and they are offensive and wounding. It is even more amazing to hear what can only be described as an almost primitive fear of this Measure from members of an institution whose constitutional head has for the past 30 years been a woman.
We know that the Queen appoints archbishops and bishops on the recommendation of the Prime Minister—another woman. We have Her Majesty as defender of the faith; yet women are not acceptable as deacons. They are


acceptable as servicers and defenders of the faith—with a small "d"—but they cannot enter the heart and soul through holy orders.
The Measure is a modest one. It has already been passed by the General Synod and with overwhelming majorities in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity. Virtually all members of the Synod, down to the grass roots level, have overwhelmingly supported Measures to ordain women as deacons. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and Ladies present will have had letters from bishops and ministers. We have had pleas from our localities to pass the Measure.
Many hon. Members have pointed out that the Measure clearly distinguishes between the issue of women as deacons and that of women as priests. Women as priests is a matter which we may or may not come to at some subsequent stage. As the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said, we are discussing the ordination of women deacons, and that is what I shall stick to, as I hope all hon. Members will.
I should like to read a brief quotation from Deaconess Diana McClatchey's evidence to the Ecclesiastical Committee. She could not have put it better when she said:
At the moment a woman and a man who have been trained together and who have done exactly the same preparation and have passed out of theological college together kneel side by side at an ordination service; both receive the prayers of the congregation for their respective offices of deacon and deaconess. Hands are laid upon them. One rises a clerk in Holy Orders and the other remains a lay person—it is as simple as that—even though they will go and do the same thing in the coming year.
I feel sure that the House will not turn its back on the overwhelming support for the Measure which comes from the Church of England, nor on the 600 or so deaconesses who await our decision — a decision of this, I have to say, male-dominated House of Commons. The decision is also awaited by many women who are not deaconesses but members of congregations, and women who are not members of congregations. The matter is of deep concern not only to deaconesses and churchgoers; it affects the dignity and status of every woman in the country. Each advance affects us all. In asking the House to pass the Measure overwhelmingly, I ask hon. Members to remember that.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Unlike some of my colleagues, I am no theologian, but I shall make three observations. The first is that it never ceases to interest me when I behold the point at which people decide that they will stop in their consideration of life. For example, I believe that some of the voices we have heard against the Measure would have been heard equally well against translating the Bible into the common tongue or against the proposition that the Gospel should be taken to the gentiles. Where we stop in the evolution of God's grace is much more a matter of personal predilection than one that has any real doctrinal basis.
I speak in this debate partly because my grandfather was a member of the 1920 committee that recommended that women should be ordained as deacons. He went on later to he rector of St. Margaret's Westminster.
Secondly, I am interested in people's anxieties about splits in the Church. It is some six years since my aunt

retired as a minister of the Congregational Church. While she was entirely clear about her calling as a minister of the church, the Church of England in which she had been born and brought up would not allow her to practise her calling. When we in the Church of England look towards the unity of the Church, frequently we look too much to the Roman Catholic Church and too little to those churches, that are expanding all over the world, which have left the Anglican communion or have grown out of the Anglican communion partly because of the rigidities that we have forced on it.
Thirdly, there is some anxiety about the rate of change. Perhaps I can put it this way: it is a long time to wait for the thick end of the wedge if we are only at this late stage considering the possibility of restoring the position as we understand it to have been in the early stages of the Church, before women ceased, probably about 150 AD, to be recognised as deacons. For those reasons, and others that I shall not go into in this short debate, I shall support the Measure.

Mr. Tony Banks: I would not normally intervene in such a debate—I shall keep my remarks to a few points—but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I do not believe that we should debate measures such as the Deacons (Ordination of Women) Measure in Parliament, mainly because we live in a multi-creed society. Against that background, it can be seen as socially divisive to maintain an established Church and have a state religion which allows politicians at Westminster to poke their secular noses into matters which might concern them in their congregation but should not concern them in Parliament.
I shall be pleased to see the day when the Church of England becomes disestablished and we can leave Church matters to the Church. I shall not enter into that argument at this point, because it is very much for the future. I wish to speak because I have a constituency interest. Newham has a dynamic deaconess called Ann Eastor. She is well known in our community. She undertakes all the pastoral work at St. James's, Forest Gate, with the exception of communion and marriages—I regret to note that fact—and she is in regular attendance at Newham general hospital giving support to women in the maternity unit. It is on her behalf, in addition to the obvious principle involved, that I shall support the measure.
Although the House clearly has the power to reject the Measure—as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has invited us to do—I think that it would be both unwise and mischievous for it to do so, in view of the overwhelming support for the Measure in the diocesan synods, where 42 out of 44 approved it. Looking at the General Synod figures for the meeting in July 1985, one sees, as the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) said, that the House of Bishops voted by 36 to nil, which is a fairly hefty score. It included the vote of the Bishop of London. Quite frankly, if the Bishop of London votes for a measure, one can be certain that it is not revolutionary in any sense. The House of Clergy voted by 147 to 49 and the House of Laity by 137 to 34. Clearly, there is overwhelming support in the Synod and in the country as a whole.
I have read the evidence given to the Ecclesiastical Committee. I was especially taken by the points made by the Bishop of Rochester. He said, quite rightly, that this


development is part of a process which began in 1861 when the first deaconesses were authorised. At that time it seemed inconceivable to have a woman Prime Minister, a woman High Court judge or a woman Cabinet Minister. Women did not have the vote. We are talking about the position today. Women constitute the majority of the population. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, quite rightly, women are grossly under-represented in this House, both in terms of those who are right hon. and hon. Members and in the number of hon. Members present tonight. There is something absurd about this House, stuffed full of grey men in grey suits—I am one of them, so I do not dissociate myself from the comment— actually discussing something that primarily concerns the interests of women in the Church of England. What women are asking for is perfectly reasonable and acceptable in today's world.
The Measure affects the status of women in the Church. During the brief meeting that we had with the Archbishop of York, when the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) asked about early Church practice, I intervened to show that the Bible, rather like statistics, can produce any form of support that one wants for any argument at any given moment. Therefore, one will not quote the Bible as the source, although one could, by referring to Phebe in St. Paul's Letter to the Romans.
The case for the Measure is based not on biblical history but on modern day equity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking said, women are selected and trained in exactly the same way in theological colleges as men, but they are then treated differently when women are made deaconesses and are not in holy orders while men are made deacons and are in holy orders. If women become deacons, they will be entitled to call themselves Reverend if they so wish and to wear a clerical collar, although perhaps it would be offensive to give the term "dog collar" the feminine equivalent.
However, there are matters of greater importance because, as the right hon. Member for South Down said, as clerks in holy orders, women will be empowered to conduct marriage services. Deaconesses already have the authority to conduct burial services. They can send people from the world, so they should be able to join people together in happiness in the world. They will have the same authority and status as deacons currently enjoy. Equal status for equal work is a wholly reasonable demand, and we should support the Measure.

Mr. William Powell: At this late stage in the debate, I shall resist the temptation to pick up some of the interesting side issues that have been raised; instead, I shall concentrate on two overwhelming reasons why the Measure should be rejected. I very much follow the line of argument adopted by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), but I wish to identify it in this way.
First, if the Measure passes, under the law of England there will he, for the first time, two categories of deacon. Hitherto, in the entire history of the Church, the orders of bishop, priest and deacon have been indivisible. If the Measure is passed, in the Church of England there will be two categories of deacon—first, those who can and will move on to the priesthood and, secondly, those who will be incapable, though deacons, of doing so. The distinction between the two will be entirely one of sex.
Men will, as now, be able to proceed, and normally will after one year, to become ordained as priests. Women, though deacons and able to fulfil the entire range of diaconate functions, will not be able to. There is little doubt in my mind that if we pass the Measure, because of that distinction, there will be those who will go to the courts and say that the Measure should be read alongside other statutes that lay down sex equality. In other words, there is a real danger that the main result of the Measure will be confusion arising from litigation. The House should be in no doubt that what is proposed is the creation of two classes of deacon — one male, one female. That cannot be right.
My second reason for asking the House to oppose the Measure is simply this. It was made clear in the discussions before the Ecclestiastical Committee that the Church of England was at this time considering a revision of the functions of the order of deacon. My hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner referred to experiments in the diocese of Portsmouth and elsewhere whereby it would be envisaged that certain deacons would not go on to the priesthood in due course, as is the usual, and indeed the almost inevitable, progression at present.
If that is so, and if the Church of England is looking for a redefinition of the diaconate order, that should be done before the House and the Church as a whole consider the role of women in that diaconate order. If the Measure goes ahead, we shall be putting the cart before the horse. Of that nobody should be in any doubt. It is probably the case that the Church of England is not considering too seriously a revision of the diaconate order. Indeed, there are no Measures before the Synod that would do that. Although an experiment may be taking place in the smallest diocese of the Church of England, it may be a long time before anything proceeds there.
For both those reasons, the House would be well advised to ponder and to realise that if we pass the Measure, we shall go down a wrong path. There are those who argue that it is hardly the business of the House. I am a baptised and confirmed member of the Church of England. I have been a church warden and am the son of a clergyman in the 45th year of his ministry. I glory in the fact that we have an established Church in this country. Again and again down the centuries Parliament has saved the Church from itself, from the time of the great Henrician statutes. I have no doubt that we have every right to say to the Church of England today, as Parliament has said again and again in the past, "You are wrong in what you are proposing. Think again." We should do so now on this Measure.

Mr. Frank Field: Unlike the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), I wish to comment on the main themes of the debate. In doing so, I shall pick up the theme introduced by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), because it is the first time in an ecclesiastical debate that I find myself disagreeing with him. There is always a danger in trying to simplify any of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, and no doubt he will be quick to his feet if I distort some of what he was trying to say.
I thought that part of the argument that the right hon. Gentleman put forward in advocating the rejection of the Measure was that the Church itself had not thought out carefully enough the implications of what we were being asked to approve. As he said that, I was reminded of the


comment by Aneurin Bevan. He had been listening to the then Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, and said that the problem with listening to him was that it was like a trip round Woolworth's; everything is in place and nothing is priced over sixpence. In life, it is difficult to fit everything neatly into place. Indeed, it is wrong for us to think that God acts as super-manager of a local Woolworth's store.
I disagreed with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), who made an erudite speech, in that his defence of authority seemed to leave out the basis that the Church in England claims for its authority, which is the Reformation. If we, in our supposed wisdom, were establishing a Church in this country, it is doubtful, given how many of us view the nature of a Church, that we would make it an established Church. However, that is how history has turned out, and as the hon. Gentleman said, the wisdom of that decision has been shown, in that on many occasions it has been the secular arm of the state that has saved the Church.
I have no hesitation in approaching the second theme of the debate, which was put so forcibly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Attractive as his invitation was for each of us to wander down memory lane with him on past achievements of women in the Church or the horrors of establishment, I beg us not to do so. I have voted against every measure of privatisation in the House and I view disestablishment of the Church as a measure of privatisation in that it would be taking something that belongs to the nation and giving it to the sects.
One of the sad things about the Labour party and the Church of England is that debate seems similar in both organisations. The thirst for the sect to have authority seems to know no bounds. We have every right and a duty seriously to consider every Measure put to us by the Church. If we believe that a Measure is unwise, we should reject it. We have not had such arguments in this debate.
In his speech the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), as usual, put his finger on an important point, hut, if he will forgive me for saying so, he did not take his argument through to a conclusion. He asked a question that is often in my mind about what constitutes the basis of authority within a Church. The hon. Gentleman mentioned two. One was scripture and the other was tradition. I am sure he listened carefully to the speech by his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. In that speech, the question was firmly answered on both criteria. In terms of scripture and tradition, and because of the evidence, we ought to give an overwhelming vote in favour of this Measure.
There is further evidence for an Anglican to draw on in the wish of the Lambeth conference to initiate this Measure. Some would say that it is a reactionary Measure because it goes back to what was rather than establishing something new. Given that we do not have synods of bishops in the Anglican community, our Lambeth conference is the nearest we can get to that. Anglicans listening to the debate ought to consider the request by most of the bishops of most of the Anglican communities in the world for this Measure to be accepted. We ought to consider that carefully before we vote.
The matter of authority, which is my third theme, was properly raised by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge. The evidence put forward suggests that we

should say that authority in scripture and in tradition is behind this Measure. That leads me to my last main point, the issue of women priests. That has been the backcloth to this debate and even those hon. Members who told me, though they are not present in the Chamber, that they would speak in favour of the Measure, made speeches about the ordination of women to the priesthood. The speeches were such that I felt that I could not have heard them correctly outside the Chamber and that they were trying to stir up the Government Benches to get a "No" vote.
Let us be clear. We are told that this Measure has nothing to do with the ordination of women into the priesthood. I hope that I will live as part of the Church to see women priests. I plead with those who will be campaigning with us for that Measure not to use the passing of this Measure as a reason for the ordination of women priests because there are other reasons for that. One of the main causes of anger in the House against the Synod is the highly political way in which it has presented Measures to us and has said that they are limited Measures and would not be added to. As soon as we have passed the Measures, as with the reform of the Prayer Book, the Synod has come back and said that we must concede a further reform, that we allowed it to do the experiments and suggested an alternative Prayer Book and that now we are denying it a reform.
I ask of those in Synod a standard of political debate of the sort that they expect from their elected representatives in Parliament and that they take the debate at its face value. This is not a debate about women priests but about a Measure to allow the ordination of women deacons. I hope that we approve of that Measure.
I shall conclude by touching on the point made by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). He told the House about the deliberations of the Ecclesiastical Committee and he asked whether the canon was ready and prepared. The answer is yes. He told the House about the long and considered debates in the Ecclesiastical Committee about this Measure. The Committee concluded that we should approve the Measure, but it would be wrong for anyone to quote the figures of the Division on that conclusion. On practically every Measure that we considered in Committee some of us found ourselves in the minority. On this occasion as on others, the minority was such that the Measure could be recommended to the House.
In the light of the arguments that have been put forward I hope that the House approves the Measure. There is much evidence in scripture and tradition in support of it, and while we have every right to reject it, we certainly cannot reject it on the arguments that have been raised against it in this debate. I hope that the vote will result in a large majority for its affirmation.

Mr. Robert Key: We have heard some scholarly and profound speeches but my few words will be intensely practical. I shall not go down the road taken by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) by giving anecdotes about my family's association with the Church, although the eldest sons in my family have been priests in the Church for five generations.
Many hon. Members feel strongly about this Measure, but I wish simply to support the General Synod of the Church of England. This Measure does not open the door


to the ordination of women to the priesthood. We are told that until the 12th century the diaconate was a distinct and permanent order of men and women and that it was part of the Church's historic threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. The diaconate has its own defined duties and this Measure is simply a move to reassert the rightful status of the diaconate.
The report by the Ecclesiastical Committee says that the first deaconess in the Church of England, Elizabeth Ferard was dedicated in 1861 by the then Bishop of London. It goes on:
The admission of women as deaconesses was seen not as a departure from doctrine or practice but as the restoration of a ministry of service known to the primitive Church. Dr. J. B. Lightfoot, who later became Bishop of Durham in 1879, claimed that 'the female diaconate is as definite an institution in the Apostolic Church as the male diaconate'.
This Measure will put an end to the glaring injustice, illogicality and indefensibility of the present situation about women. Women are selected and trained on the same basis as men in theological colleges such as my own in Salisbury and Wells. They do what amounts to the same job as men and are even ordained alongside men when the bishop lays his hands on them in the same way. Because of their sex, they do not become clerks in Holy Orders like the men but must remain laity sitting in the House of Laity and unable by the law of the land to solemnise or attest marriages. That is an important point because it is pastoral nonsense. Many deaconesses know engaged couples much better than the priest who will marry them.
If one reads with any feeling the report called "Faith in the City" and looks at the proposals for the increased work of women in the church, especially in our inner cities, one will sometimes be filled with despair. It is despairing to think that we could prevent a great deal of such work in future.
The present position is unacceptably vague about women. For example the "Making of a Deaconess" section of the ordination service is ambiguous. The status of deaconesses is generally ambiguous in that, although they function in every way as clergy, they are not clergy. If deaconesses go abroad to provinces that have women deacons, they may not even be allowed to preach, being regarded as lay readers. Such provinces include Canada, Kenya, the Episcopal Church in the United States, New Zealand, Uganda, Japan, central Africa, Wales, southern Africa, Ireland and Hong Kong.
I have received many letters on the subject—as, I am sure, have all hon. Members. I shall quote briefly from two of them, as they have struck a particular chord with me. The first is from a lady in my constituency who says:
At present I am training alongside my husband at Salisbury and Wells theological college. Both he and I hope and pray that we shall be ordained together, as deacons in the Church of England, and therefore urge you to vote in favour.
The second letter is from a canon in my constituency who says:
Most of my experience has been as a missionary in Central Africa … and in Africa it is urgent that the status of women in the Church be raised, and many communities bereft of men should have women leaders. The Church in ex-British Africa still takes its cue from the Church of England. Please excuse the inadequacies of this letter: it's the first time I've ever written to an MP, but it's a matter on which I feel strongly.
We shall be doing nobody a service if we reject this Measure.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I am very glad to be taking part in this debate. I too, have received letters from constituents, including deaconesses who are serving in very deprived parishes. I am very glad to be representing them tonight, for they say that they wish to be ordained, as this Measure would allow.
It is important to emphasise that it is a limited Measure. It enables deaconesses, who now exercise their ministry as laywomen, to be ordained as deacons, not as priests. Also it enables bishops to ordain as deacons women who are training alongside men at theological colleges—a change that has taken place in recent years. Men and women now train together in theological colleges. They follow the same courses and receive the same qualifications. Therefore it is absurd that at the end of their training the treatment of women should be so different from that of men.
The Church treats lay deaconesses in the work that they do as though they were male deacons, yet they do not ordain them. Therefore, to vote for this Measure would put right an anomaly in the practices of the Church. Even more important, it would make it clear for the first time in English law that by virtue of her sex a woman is not thereby incapacitated from receiving the grace of holy orders. That is another reason why this important and significant step should be taken tonight. Other hon. Members have pointed out that it would be in line with the traditions of the Church of England.
Furthermore, it would also be in line with clear scriptural teaching of the kind upon which 1 was brought up. My father was a Baptist minister. My mother also conducted church services. She both preached and held holy communion services. The principles upon which I was brought up are clearly specified in the New Testament:
In Christ there is neither male or female.
To vote for this Measure tonight would demonstrate that the House recognises that principle, as the Church is seeking to do by putting before us this Measure.
It is not only in terms of the traditions of the Church and the principles of scripture that I hope the House will pass the Measure. As other hon. Members have clearly stated, it commands majority support in the General Synod of the Church of England, in the dioceses of the Church of England and among the lay members of the Church of England. It will he welcomed by active members of the Church and also by those outside the Church who look to it for guidance on how to conduct their lives. Women have been second-rate citizens in the Church of England for too long. Tonight I hope that we shall take a small step towards putting that right.

Mr. Tony Baldry: This House is a legislative body and it has given certain statutory powers to the General Synod of the Church of England. Those powers favour the status quo. A change would require a two thirds majority in each of the three houses of the General Synod If the General Synod passes a Measure, this House ought to endorse it, unless it touches on a wider constitutional issue—for example, the status of the Queen as head of the Church of England or the status of the Succession to the Crown Act 1707.
In the absence of a wider constitutional issue, this House should endorse a Measure that has been passed by the General Synod of the Church of England; otherwise


the General Synod will say to this House, with some justification, that although the Synod has applied its mind and intellect to a Measure that has come before it, the House of Commons, after only a very short debate, has overturned it. If we overturn this Measure, sooner or later we shall come into conflict with members of the General Synod. They will ask themselves why they should devote time, energy and effort to drawing up Measures that Parliament then overturns.
I do not challenge the integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) or his comments, but he has failed to convince other members of the General Synod about the strength of his argument. If he has failed to convince members of the Anglian communion who have taken a particular interest in theological issues, the House should rightly regard his comments with deep suspicion.
As a general principle, the House should seek to endorse the views of the members of the General Synod, unless there is a very good reason for not doing so. I was not elected a Member of Parliament for Banbury to exercise my judgment on issues relating to worship and doctrine. I am not qualified to do so. For that reason, this House gave such powers to the General Synod. Therefore we should follow its guidance. There is overwhelming support for this Measure in the General Synod of the Church of England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) referred to the diaconate of the early Church. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge and certain other hon. Members are staunchly against women playing a greater role in the Church, but who was it to whom the resurrected Christ first appeared? Was it not, according to St. Mark's gospel, to Mary Magdalene? Why should Christ have appeared to her unless he believed that women should play a greater role in preaching the gospel? On grounds of theology, therefore, the House should support this Measure. However, the fundamental point is that, having given statutory powers and responsibilities to the General Synod, the House should endorse its decisions and support with confidence Measures that have been passed by it.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am a member of the General Synod. Nobody can deny the tremendous work that deaconesses have done over the centuries. I must observe, however, that the vote about which we have been told this evening was taken by the old Synod. There have been substantial changes in its composition since the election, and there are now more members of it who oppose the ordination of women.
The Measure will end the order of deaconesses. It is an important Measure, but it will bring about false hope among lady deacons as it is quite clear that this is the last but one step to being admitted to the priesthood. These proposals will create confusion in the Church—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the order [24 October].

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 25.

Division No. 298]
[7 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Alton, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Anderson, Donald





Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Ashdown, Paddy
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aspinwall, Jack
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Foster, Derek


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fry, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gale, Roger


Barnett, Guy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, W. E.


Batiste, Spencer
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beith, A. J.
Gould, Bryan


Bell, Stuart
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bendall, Vivian
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Greenway, Harry


Best, Keith
Gregory, Conal


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ground, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hannam, John


Boyes, Roland
Hardy, Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayes, J.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hayward, Robert


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Browne, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buchan, Norman
Heddle, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Heffer, Eric S.


Caborn, Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hickmet, Richard


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hill, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Cartwright, John
Hirst, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holt, Richard


Clay, Robert
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Howells, Geraint


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Cope, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Craigen, J. M.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Critchley, Julian
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Crowther, Stan
John, Brynmor


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Donald
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dixon, Donald
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dobson, Frank
Key, Robert


Dormand, Jack
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkwood, Archy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dubs, Alfred
Lamond, James


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Lang, Ian


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Latham, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted


Eastham, Ken
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Lester, Jim


Emery, Sir Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lilley, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Livsey, Richard






Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Patchett, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Strettord)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Loyden, Edward
Penhaligon, David


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Pike, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Porter, Barry


McCrindle, Robert
Portillo, Michael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Raffan, Keith


McKelvey, William
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Maclean, David John
Renton, Tim


McLoughlin, Patrick
Richardson, Ms Jo


McWilliam, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Madden, Max
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Madel, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Malone, Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Maples, John
Rooker, J. W.


Marek, Dr John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Marland, Paul
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rost, Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rowe, Andrew


Mates, Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Maxton, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Sedgemore, Brian


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Mellor, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Michie, William
Sheerman, Barry


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Shersby, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Moore, Rt Hon John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Murphy, Christopher
Silvester, Fred


Nelson, Anthony
Sims, Roger


Newton, Tony
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Norris, Steven
Skinner, Dennis


Onslow, Cranley
Smith,C. (lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Osborn, Sir John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Ottaway, Richard
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Snape, Peter


Park, George
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive





Spearing, Nigel
Tracey, Richard


Speed, Keith
Trippier, David


Speller, Tony
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Spencer, Derek
Waddington, David


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wainwright, R.


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Squire, Robin
Walden, George


Steel, Rt Hon David
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Watson, John


Stott, Roger
Weetch, Ken


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Whitfield, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winnick, David


Terlezki, Stefan
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thorne, Stan (Preston)



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Tony Banks and


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Tony Baldry.


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)



NOES


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Neubert, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Conway, Derek
Proctor, K. Harvey


Farr, Sir John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Gow, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stokes, John


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Hunter, Andrew
Wiggin, Jerry


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)



McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Tellers for the Noes:


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Mr. William Powell and


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Peter Bruinvels.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Deacons (Ordination of Women) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Government Business

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the course of the last debate in the other place on the Housing and Planning Bill the Government were defeated on certain amendments moved on Third Reading. That followed defeats in the other place in Committee and on Report.
I wonder whether through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could ask the Government Front Bench to ask their colleagues whether we may have a statement tomorrow, in some form or other, on whether the Government are proposing to reverse specifically their view on the important matter on which they were defeated tonight—homelessness. It is a matter which has caused equivocation and concern in the past. More importantly, I request information about the expedition of business this week and next.
There are similar provisions and amendments in relation to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which again has to complete its stages through both Houses before the end of this Session. If amendments are to be tabled with the normal two days' clear notice before debate in the House next week, it will be helpful if, before the business statement on Thursday, we know the Government's attitude to what has happened in the other place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman has made his point, which is now on the record. He will be aware that it is not a matter for the Chair, and there is no comment that I can make.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 October].
That the Promoters of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table with the New Clause as added on Consideration of the Bill as amended;
That no further Fees shall he charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have obtained a copy of a letter which has been sent by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, of European house. The Dock, Felixstowe, Suffolk. It is signed by Mr. George Blackhall, who describes himself as the managing director of that company. I ask you to rule on what I submit is a clear breach of privilege.
In the first sentence of the letter, which is headed
Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Private Bill
Mr. Blackhall writes:
Dear member, As I am sure you are"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is raising a matter of privilege. If I have understood him correctly, I remind him that the procedure for raising prima facie breaches of privilege is to write to Mr. Speaker. If this is the case, he should write to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Boyes: I shall certainly do so but if I may just read the first sentence—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot do that. I have explained to him the procedure for dealing with what he alleges is a breach of privilege. I invite him, straight away, to write to Mr. Speaker, who will consider his point and eventually give his ruling.

Mr. Boyes: I am seeking your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This letter is interfering with tonight's debate, at the end of which, I presume, there will be a vote. It is vital that there should be a free debate this evening, and I believe that this letter is directly interfering with the rights of hon. Members to take part freely in the debate. Mr. Blackball is trying to influence hon. Members by referring to the delaying tactics of a small coterie of Labour Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. What he is saying may be relevant to the debate, hut I wish to make two points. First, I have not seen the letter, and I think that it would be best if he could let me have the letter. I could then study it and perhaps give him further advice.
Secondly, hon. Members are free to make whatever comments they feel appropriate in the debate that is about to start.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If groups outside the Chamber attempt to put undue pressure on hon. Members, as the letter does, that is something to which the House ought to give some consideration before the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman appears to be alleging a contempt. If that is the case, he well knows that the procedure is to write to Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) will do so, and I invite him to let me have sight of the letter so that I can take advice. If there is any further guidance that I can give to the House after I have seen the letter, I will, of course, give it.

Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to point out that not only did we receive copies of this letter, but that we had the interesting example of a three-line Whip being issued. I realise that it is entirely for hon. Members to decide whether to issue a Whip, but it appears to be a considerable breach of the usual procedures on private business, when hon. Members are supposed to act in a semi-judicial function rather than act in the way that they would in a normal debate.
The difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that although you suggested that we should submit the letter to Mr. Speaker for a ruling, as it is especially germane to today's debate it would be far less satisfactory if the ruling were made after the debate than it would be if we could have some indication at this stage of Mr. Speaker's view.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that that is what I intend. I am at a disadvantage because I have only this moment received the letter. If there is any further advice that I can give to the House I shall certainly do so, hut 1 cannot do so until I have read the letter.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to ask your advice. This is not the first time that this particular private company, when bringing an opposed private Bill through parliament, has impugned the integrity of hon. Members. I believe that we are entitled to your protection, because a slur has again been cast on the impartiality of hon. Members who served on the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point. We have well established procedures in this House. If a breach of privilege is alleged, the hon. Members concerned must write to Mr. Speaker, who will deal with the matter and give a ruling at the earliest possible opportunity. There is nothing further that I can add, because our rules are very clear.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I wish to speak briefly against this carry-over motion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman wished to raise a point of order. I realise that he has put down his marker to speak in the debate, and I shall look out for him.

Mr. Boyes: On a different point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it possible for me to move the suspension of the sitting so that you have an opportunity to study the letter? I fully understand your earlier ruling, but because of the serious implications for the debate this evening I ask you to suspend the sitting while you study the letter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to do that. I have heard nothing that makes me think it necessary to suspend the sitting. Indeed, I suggest that we now get on with the debate.

Mr. Ken Weetch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the debate I shall wish to quote from a document that has been issued by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, but which is marked "Copyright". Is there any obstacle to my quoting the document because it has a copyright mark?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad to inform the hon. Gentleman that there is no bar—he is quite free to quote the document if he so wishes. However, I hope that he will not read very long extracts from it, in the interests of time.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is the Chairman of Ways and Means who has placed this motion upon the Order Paper. I think that that, of itself, demonstrates that what we are dealing with tonight is not a debate on the merits of the Bill, but simply one on parliamentary procedure. Essentially, the motion states:
the Promoters … shall have leave to suspend proceedings … in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament.
There is nothing unusual about that. Indeed, only yesterday no fewer than four major private Bills were brought before the House for carry-over motions —the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Bill (Lords), the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill (Lords), the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill (Lords) and the Port of Fosdyke Bill (Lords). The House assented without debate to the proposal that all those Bills should he carried over for further consideration in the next Session.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, while it is fairly common for carry-over motions to be approved by the House, it is exceptional for two carry-over motions to he sought? The interesting point is that 12 months ago the promoters came forward with a carry-over motion, and have now done so again. It is their intransigence that has necessitated two attempts to carry over the Bill. Can the hon. Gentleman give a precedent for that?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The House will form its own judgment on why there has been protracted consideration of the Bill.
Because this is a procedural matter, I shall confine myself to the procedures that we have followed so far. On 13 May 1985, just over 18 months ago, the Bill received an overwhelming majority on Second Reading. There were consecutive votes of 201 to 54 and 195 to 59. The House


voted virtually four to one that the Bill should proceed. It then went to Committee where, rather surprisingly for a private Bill, it remained for five months. The Committee devoted 26 working days to the Bill, beating the previous record for a private Bill in Committee by two days. There have also been four debates on the Floor of the House. Therefore, we have spent 15 hours on the Floor of the House and 145 hours in Committee— making a total of 160 hours of parliamentary time—discussing the Bill.
The time has now come for the House to reach a decision. Unfortunately, and certainly through no fault of the promoters, hon. Members have been able to delay a final decision. Consequently, with time running out, there is no alternative but to move the motion so that the House shall have an opportunity to arrive at a decision on a matter to which it has already devoted this extraordinarily large amount of time. It would be to the discredit of the House if, after that Second Reading vote and all the hours spent on the Bill, the House was to be prevented from reaching a conclusion on the Bill.
I therefore support the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I rise to speak briefly against the carry-over motion. I think that the public, as well as hon. Members, will be bemused by what is happening with this Bill. They will wonder why so much money is being spent by the promoters to get it through. They will wonder why so many people are putting their prestige at risk and why so much effort is being made to push through the Bill. They will wonder why so many reputations are being put on the line.
The public will find it odd that Conservative Members have been telling their colleagues at what time there would be a closure motion. I thought that whether or not there could be a closure motion was a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but Conservative Members apparently have it all worked out. They are saying that there will be a closure motion. That appears to be a form of contempt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that you would not be pushed around by anyone. Let us hope that there will be no closure motion.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)—I bear him no ill-will; he is doing his best—has his facts back to front about the amount of time spent on the Bill. The one thing that is precious above all else in the House of Commons is time on the Floor of the House, and when a Bill has been debated for so long on the Floor of the House and cannot go through, it has had a fair wind, to use the term used by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds in a document that I saw today, and it should be dropped from the schedule.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that the Bill had been debated for 15 hours on the Floor of the House. That is more than enough time. The hon. Gentleman is helping my argument. I asked some researchers to find out how long the debate has taken, and they told me that it had been debated on the Floor of the House for 12 hours and 50 minutes. I ask the House to think back through all the private Bills that have gone through the House in the past 20 years and ask when the House was so generous with its time that it allowed debates

on the Floor of the House for either my figure of 12 hours and 50 minutes or the staggering figure of 15 hours given by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
Even as I speak, I am running through those private Bills chronologically and alphabetically in my mind. I am pressing buttons and they are all coming up in front of me, and I think that I am right in saying that six private Members' Bills have been debated for an exceptionally long time on the Floor of the House. No. 6 on the list, in 1970–71, is the Mersey Docks and Harbour Act, which was debated for eight hours and 10 minutes. I was not here then but I am told that, by the time the Act went through, after such a long time, there was pain and tension on the faces of hon. Members. No. 5 on the list is the Birmingham City Council Act, which went through during the 1984–85 Session. I was here at that time, so I know that it was debated for eight hours and 20 minutes and that tempers got so frayed at that length of debate that I heard one hon. Member—it was not recorded in Hansard, presumably because it was unparliamentary — call another hon. Member a cad. That shows the difficulties into which we get when we debate these matters for so long.
No. 4 on the list is the Isle of Wight County Council Act, again going through the House over the 1970–71 Session, which was debated for eight hours and 59 minutes. By the time that had gone through the House, the whole House was asleep. It was rather as though the Foreign Secretary had spoken uninterrupted for that length of time. Third on the list was the West Midlands County Act, which is the precedent for which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was looking when he spoke about two carryovers. The Bill was carried over from 1977–78 to 1978–79 and then to 1979–80. It shows the impartiality with which I approach these matters that I am prepared to show precedent against my side.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that neither of those carry-overs was opposed, and they were necessitated by a general election?

Mr. Sedgemore: I accept that. I am glad that my hon. Friend has hit the ball from our court and has left Conservative Members to answer the point.
That Bill was debated on the Floor of the House for nine hours and 15 minutes, and a kind of mental torpor was induced in hon. Members on both sides of the House. Then there was the Lloyd's Act, that famous Bill, conceived in scandal and with its scandalous result. Until this Bill, that was the leader. It was debated on the Floor for some 13 hours and four minutes and, even if my figure is right, that is bound to be exceeded by the time that this Bill goes through. Of all the Acts in the past 20 years, why has the House allowed the extraordinary lengthy debate on this Bill to continue?
The passage of the Bill reflects the falling of standards in public and private life which has been characterised too much by this Administration. I see the Bill, and the way in which it has been dealt with in the House, as a kind of soap opera rather like "EastEnders", where the standards of moral probity and integrity are set by "Dirty Den" and that gormless poor old sod who grows leeks that are inedible and is taking money out of the Christmas fund that belongs to the residents of Hackney, who are the victims of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: rose—

Mr. Sedgemore: I do not wish to speak for too long, so I shall not give the hon. Gentleman the pleasure of interrupting me. He wants to get the Bill through, so I am sure he can contain his impatience. He has had part of the 23 days over which the Bill was dealt with in Committee and heroically—no praise is too high—fought by my hon. friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).

Mr. Boyes: To which Tory Member was my Friend referring when he spoke of "Dirty Den"?

Mr. Sedgemore: I shall not go down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that you would interrupt me. My hon. Friend tempts me, as he always does, and I always try to behave properly and stick to the rules.

Mr. Sayeed: rose—

Mr. Sedgemore: I take the view that, if someone wants something in life, one should give it to him. Some people want to be Prime Minister, so one should let them be Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is desperate to intervene, so let him do so.

Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman gave us a ream of statistics as to how long Bills have taken. Has he noticed that the longer he has spent in the House, the longer private Bills have spent on the Floor of the House? Is there a connection?

Mr. Sedgemore: I am a statistician and I have done the cross-correlations; the correlation in these cases is that the longer a Bill is debated on the Floor of the House, the worse it is. If the hon. Gentleman does not like drawing graphs to work things out, he can do it with algebra and the differential calculus. If he does it that way, he will find that the correlations hold.
Can one conceive what our grandchildren will say about this Bill? It is 1 January 2000—a new century is about to begin. I do not have a granddaughter now, but given that I may have one then, what will she say to me about the passage of the Bill and this vote? She will ask me, "Where were you, granddaddy, when the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act went through the House?" I shall put her on my knee and say, "Little one, I was there at the start. On 28 October 1986, on a debate on the carry-over motion, I had the privilege of being allowed to address the House, but the days rolled by from May till September, the years passed, one parliamentary Session merged into the next, and then there was special legislation to carry it over from one election to another and by the time that the Act came on to the statute book I had retired from Parliament and worse than that, some of my most revered friends and colleagues, good people that they were, were dead."
I shall then turn to my wife, who will be my little granddaughter's grandmother and I will say, "Do you remember old Kenny Weetch, that slip of a bloke from Ipswich, who was much tougher than you think, and the man who fought to stop the Act? The great thing about Kenny Weetch was that he could smell fiduciary trouble and could sniff out financial irregularities."

Mr. William Cash: Is it not possible that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) is sniffing out an electoral advantage?

Mr. Sedgemore: The one hon. Member I would absolve from that type of scurrilous attack—except, of course, Mr. Speaker and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—would be

my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). Nothing could be further from his mind when he goes to bed every night. His conscience is clear.
I wonder why I woke at five o'clock this morning and thought about whether we should vote for or against this motion. What worries me about this debate? When I breathe in the atmosphere, why, instead of feeling exhilarated, do I feel depressed, apart from the fact that I can hear my own voice? I think that part of the answer is contained in this letter from Mr. George Blackhall. I do not want to attack him but I am bound to say that this is not the type of letter that should be written by respectable people who try to gain consensus in the House. He referred to some of my hon. Friends — I take it he was not referring to me — as a "small coterie" of Labour Members. He is saying that he does not believe in the democratic process or in the right of hon. Members to say, "We have had enough time to debate the Bill. It now ought to be dropped because it has not secured the consensus of the House." I am sure that he wants the Bill to be passed because, presumably, there is money in it for him.
I do not warn Mr. Blackhall, because I do not like to threaten people℔I am usually the one who is threatened—but I say to him that he should remember the usurers in Dante's "Inferno". They were taken into circle seven and made to stand on hot sands beneath burning rains. That sort of thing will happen to him if he continues to write this kind of letter to Members of Parliament.
It is said that the Bill will pass because it has the support of local Members of Parliament and the present and, I believe, past chairmen of the Conservative party and the Committee. I do not intend to attack any chairman of the Conservative party because they could become an endangered species, rather like the birds that will be affected in this part of Suffolk.
There are problems. One of the local people concerned happens to have been — I accept that it is pure coincidence— the past chairman of the Conservative party. Part of his function—this is perfectly all right—is to get money for the Conservative party. As the Bill has been considered, European Ferries Ltd. has been pouring money into the Conservative party as though there will be no tomorrow. That is one reason why some of us are beginning to think that we will vote against the Bill, if indeed there is a vote and we get to the vote tonight.
I ask hon. Members to think about it. Is it not odd that not many private Member's Bills are before Parliament at the moment? Not many private companies give such an amount of money to the Conservative party. Therefore, one is tempted to ask why. Let us not condemn the chairman of the Conservative party. In addition to trying to get the Bill through Parliament with this free enterprise Whip with three lines under it—it is a wretched job; we all know that—and in addition to getting money out of European Ferries for the Conservative party, one has to gag the British Broadcasting Corporation, rig the courts and do all kinds of things that one would not otherwise wish to do.
When the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds introduced the Bill, he said that he thought that it would be given a fair wind as it went through Parliament. Of course, the money would help to give it a fair wind, but, in addition to that, it was said that the parish, district and county councillors and local Members of Parliament were all Conservative loyalists and would ensure that the Bill was pushed through. It was said of previous developments,


such as the Trinity terminal, that the massed ranks of the Conservative party had joined forces and tried to secure the development. A gale is raging against the Bill in the heartland of Conservative Britain. That is why we should not push it through tonight. Surely we have had enough of this.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's political meteorology is accurate. Which responsible bodies in East Anglia or Suffolk oppose the Bill on any economic grounds?

Mr. Sedgemore: I am coming to that point. I am glad the hon. Gentleman asked me that question. I am sure that he wishes to assist me.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Which bodies?

Mr. Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman must be patient. He must not act as though he is Robin Day, that type of out-of-work barrister. I am a real barrister. The out-of-work barrister says to the witness, "Answer the question, answer the question, answer the question." The real barrister is far more subtle about it. He gently draws out the answers. That is why such people win cases. If, God forbid, the hon. Gentleman became a barrister, I would not call on him to defend me.
A number of environmentalists, politicians and people concerned with navigational aids have joined forces to oppose the Bill. There has been a type of holy trinity; God the father, God the son and God the Holy Ghost—the Labour party, the East Coast yacht club and the Trinity preservation society.
I do not wish to examine the merits of the Bill, because to do so would be out of order. It is interesting that, in order to discuss the Bill, I have had to talk to people who are interested in yachting. By and large, yachting is as far from my perspective as possible, although my son likes it. I went to the Royal Thames yacht club. Imagine my surprise when I found that it is in Knightsbridge. There is no water there. I thought that a ship needed water to keep afloat. I went through the door, and, after I said who I was, a flunkey said to me, "Quarterdeck, Sir?" I said, "Is that up or down?" I still do not know.
In order to debate the Bill, I talked to people, some of whom were disturbed by it, whatever the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds may say. I talked to people from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the royal college of ornithology, or whatever it is. Where did we talk? I stayed at Posty farm near Maenclochog in the Preseley mountains. At the top of the Preseley mountains birds were hovering and swooping. We asked ourselves whether they were kestrels or peregrine falcons. My son had his zoom lens camera. The zoom lens camera was invented by a Communist professor, whose son is a friend of mine. That is slightly off the track so I will return to the subject. We are waiting to see the photographic prints to determine what these birds were. I do not suppose there are any kestrels or peregrine falcons in this area, but many other birds will be at risk, and many people from the royal society will be worried about that. [Interruption.] My PPS, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), has handed me a paper. The chairman of the Tribune group is acting as my PPS. That is the type of power that I like to see.
Surely we cannot proceed with this carry-over motion when the status of the parent company is not known. As I understand it, the parent company of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company is European Ferries Ltd. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds should comment on this because circumstances have changed vastly. We have discovered that P and 0 has bought a large slice of European Ferries. Ministers have also discovered it because they have referred that purchase to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under section 64 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Weetch: P and O has purchased 20.8 per cent. of the shares of European Ferries. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is currently conducting an inquiry into whether the shareholding should stand. The Department of Transport, which should be represented in this debate, has given written evidence and observations on whether the shareholding should stand. Whether or not it does will make a critical difference to the Bill. Would my hon. Friend welcome an intervention from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport so that hon. Members can learn the Government's attitude to the P and 0 acquisition of 20.8 per cent. of the shares of European Ferries?

Mr. Sedgemore: As ever, my hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter, asking the most penetrating and perceptive questions. It almost hurts me, on behalf of the Government, to have to listen to them because they are so powerful and poignant in their effect. The problem is that the inquiry will take some time to complete, so we need the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come before the House. It is a fair bet that if the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry allows P and 0 to maintain its 20·8 per cent. interest, there is a real possibility that P and 0 will reconsider the whole scheme and may throw it out. It seems ludicrous that at this time, during the inquiry, hon. Members should say that we should carry over this tiresome debate to the next Session.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend consider why European Ferries is encouraging P and 0 in its takeover? I understand that European Ferries is in some difficulty at Felixstowe docks because it spent a great deal of money expanding the Trinity quay on the basis that it would attract considerable extra trade. European Ferries put such predictions to the House, but it has not got the extra trade. Considerable capital costs are tied up in the Trinity quay and I understand that the company wrote to many of its employees more or less saying that, because of the problems of the capital tied up in the existing quays, there would not be a wage increase this year. It seems absolutely crazy to want to extend the quays when it looks as if the company will not be able to attract sufficient trade, thus putting it into an even worse financial position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that he would not discuss the merits of the Bill because he realised that that would be out of order. That, of course, is perfectly correct. Incidental references to the merits of the Bill are, of course, necessary in a debate on a carry-over motion. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are dealing with a carryover motion and that the debate must be addressed to that.

Mr. Weetch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having followed the proceedings on the Bill carefully and


having read recently the debate on the carry-over motion last year, I know that the consensus was that matters in the carry-over motion could not be confined merely to the linkage of procedures, if I can put it like that, but could also focus on new material introduced into the debate. Does that still stand?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What I said was that it would not be in order to go into great detail about the merits of the Bill. Clearly, it is not possible to argue for or against a carry-over motion without some reference to the Bill. I am simply saying to the hon. Gentleman that detailed references to the Bill would not be in order on a carry-over motion.

Mr. Sedgemore: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that my hon. Friends and I are trying to get over is a large point. It is that the Bill may not have the same promoters. The financial control of those who are putting forward the Bill may be different by the time we come back. A powerful argument, in addition to the others I have used, is that the financial control of the promoters may be completely different in a few months. Conservative Members must combat that point. I do not have the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in financial matters, so I am not clear about the status or the financial solvency, or otherwise, of the existing promoters without P and O's stake.
I was astonished to read the submission of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is a wonderful submission, which is all about economics. It gives some backing to the points which my hon. Friend made.
A fair number of local people do not want the Bill to be carried over. The House has an obligation to consult and advise. Hon. Members have an obligation to come here and warn other hon. Members of what local people are saying. The problem with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is that he represents a certain high-powered establishment sectional interest, the moneyed interest, but not the other groups who are complaining about the Bill. He asked me, and I have already told him, the names of some of the people who are opposed to the Bill, the yacht club— [Interruption.]

Mr. Boyes: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) asked a question, but he is not listening to the answer.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am listening with one ear.

Mr. Sedgemore: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds for saying that he is listening with one ear. I do not intend to attack him tonight because, as always, I am exercising rigid control.
The hon. Gentleman asked me who was against the Bill. I was replying that the Labour party, the yacht club and the Trinity Preservation Society are opposed to the Bill. My parliamentary private secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, has given me a list which includes the Ipswich shop stewards, Ipswich borough council, Friends of the Earth, the Suffolk ornithologists and one other, which I cannot read. Most of those groups are environmentalists.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds could have said, "Look, the real reason we want this Bill to be carried over is that there will be a lot of jobs in this for a particular area. So we ought to carry it over and get it out of the

way." My hon. Friends and I must combat that argument, and I intend to do so briefly. It is easy to put jobs in one area and take them away from another. It is easy to divide and rule. However, changes in economic circumstances make this carry-over motion much less desirable than it would otherwise have been. The Government have announced a profound economic change which will affect the course of this debate. They have said that monotheistic monetarism, based on the one god of M3, is now dead, but they are beginning to discover that pantheistic monetarism, which is based on the wisdom of a variety of gods —MO, M1, M2, M3 PSO 1, PSO2, broad money and narrow money—is also dying. The only way to get jobs for Felixstowe and the surrounding areas which will survive and allow the economy to expand is to stimulate demand and take steps about financial control and trade.
I shall not continue that debate, as it is taking me away from my main argument. However, in the light of the nature of previous debates, the moneyed interests which are pushing the Bill helter-skelter through the House, the environmental, political and navigational interests, and the overriding economic interests, there is a powerful case—I put it no higher℔for some of us to think about voting against the carry-over motion tonight.

Sir Anthony Grant: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) along the path of speculation as to whether the House of Sedgemore will survive into the next century. Nor do I intend to help him to advertise his moonlighting activities, about which I was surprised to hear, except to say that if he can advance a bad case as well as he has done tonight he should earn some handsome fees, and I wish him many happy briefs in the future.
The hon. Gentleman touched on some other private Bills which have had a lengthy consideration. In particular, he referred to the Lloyd's Bill. I, as the Member who took the Lloyd's Bill through the House, was annoyed to discover that what I thought was a record length of scrutiny was likely to be defeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), but. I could not wish to be beaten by a more splendid man.
However, there is one big difference. The Lloyds Bill, that excellent piece of legislation which is now being put into effect, went through the House thanks, to some extent, to the strong support that I had from the Labour party, and, indeed, from the Labour Front Bench, for which I am grateful. Any opposition and attempts to divide the House came from the Conservative Benches. I do not recall that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch expressed any opposition to that piece of legislation.

Mr. Sedgemore: I was not here.

Sir Anthony Grant: If the hon. Gentleman was not here, bad luck. If he had been here, he might have learnt a lot more about the Lloyd's insurance market and would not have made some of the errors that he has made subsequently.
The fact of the matter is that the Bill has had a record length of scrutiny by the House.
I support the carry-over motion because of a constituency interest. It is well known in the House that Trinity college, Cambridge, owns the land. I must explain


that Trinity college is within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who is, unfortunately, unable to be here tonight because he is abroad. However, I think he would agree that he has played an active and responsible part in the promotion of the legislation on behalf of his constituent, Trinity college.
I have an interest because a number of members of the college live in my constituency. First, as I have said previously, when the Bill was considered by Trinity college it was supported by 48 votes to nil. It is no good suggesting that Trinity college is in some strange way an adjunct of the Conservative party—far from it. Some very different views have been expressed at Trinity, but by 48 votes to nil it decided that this was a right and proper measure and in the interests of the college and the area.
The money which will be derived from the venture will not go into the pockets of the dons. It will be used entirely to help assist poorer colleges in Cambridge, thus helping the education process and, in particular, improving higher education. Indeed, it will help foreign students. We hear a great deal from Labour Members about the lamentable nature of higher education and how more money must be pumped into it. Here is an example of the way in which, through free enterprise and passing the Bill, money will come into Cambridge university and help the cause of higher education. That is one reason, if not the only one, why I hope that if there is a Division some thoughtful Labour Members will give the Bill a fair wind.
In all the scrutiny and debate and the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, one group has not been referred to, and that is the people who work at the dock. They have a right to be heard in the same way as the RSPB, and so on. They know that 5,000 jobs are involved. They also know that if the scheme goes through there will probably be 3,000 more jobs in an area where jobs are needed. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will confirm that.
Indeed, the work force is remarkable. I have just been informed that it has broken a record. Felixstowe has just established a world record for the rapid discharge of containers by unloading 60 in an hour with the aid of the fine new British container cranes on the recently opened Trinity terminal. I have a cutting from the Felixstowe Mercury of 17 October 1986 which shows a happy group of workers at the Trinity container terminal who are celebrating as the terminal manager distributes champagne to crane driver Mick Potter and the rest of the team to mark their achievement in handling 60 boxes an hour on the new terminal. They look a tough and formidable lot.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the workers are doing so well on the existing quay and have increased productivity so much, is the hon. Gentleman sure that they need a further quay? Cannot they get the capacity through without it? The company has recently written to employees pointing out that it cannot attract sufficient trade to maintain that level of output.

Sir Anthony Grant: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes down to the docks and says just that to this group of men, who I was just saying are a tough-looking lot, as they stand drinking their champagne. If he made that sort of speech to them he might find himself ending up in the

dock. I am sure that, being honourable men, they would fish him out again, but they might think that he needed a good wetting.
There has been long opposition to the Bill, some of it understandable. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), although misguided, has fought a valiant campaign in the best traditions of a constituency Member. Other opposition I can only describe as amusing but basically mischievous. We have had enough of it. The motion should be passed in the interests, not just of Trinity college, East Anglia and Felixstowe, but of the nation.

Mr. Roger Stott: It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene briefly. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) in his justification for the carry-over of the Bill. I agree with what he says about more resources for further education and foreign students. I only hope that he can persuade the Government of the virtue of that idea. We cannot fund it through the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. It needs a development in a different direction.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about jobs and employment. Labour Members are concerned about jobs, employment and unemployment as we represent constituencies with high unemployment and are having to deal with the problem on a daily basis.
When we discussed the principle of the Bill we dealt with ports policy in a national context. If Felixstowe is developed in the way sought by the Bill, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that that would have a profound effect upon the ports of Southampton and Tilbury. There could be substantial redundancies and unemployment in those ports as a consequence of such development. We cannot speak about that this evening, but we have had those arguments before.
I recall standing at the Dispatch Box, probably a year ago to the day, although I may be a couple of days out, when I intimated to the Under-Secretary that both he and I had the unfortunate responsibility of drawing the short straw. It always seems to happen when the schools have broken up for half term and my wife makes her annual visit to London. This evening, I have to listen yet again to a debate on a carry-over motion on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. The Bill has had a longer run in the west end than "The Mousetrap". It certainly feels like that.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who gave the House a historical account of the precedents for carrying over private Bills. We have been debating this Bill for a long time, and here we are once again, in the overlap session before the Queen's Speech, being asked to reconsider the Bill and to allow it further time. There are reasons why we should not do that. I shall allow my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), to expound the important reasons why the House should not allow the procedure to continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, on a point of order, asked whether it was permissible to quote from a document which was marked "Copyright". I do not know why it has been marked "Copyright" as it seems to be a perfectly normal memorandum from the company to the work force. It states:
The shortfall in income has been further aggravated by the fact that worldwide too many ships are chasing too few


containers thus lowering freight rates and seriously and adversely effecting the financial health of all of our customers who cannot pay the rates we need and from the intense and sometimes unfair competition from Continental ports.
It is true that there is unfair competition from continental ports. There always has been. The Opposition have tried to draw attention to the problem. If the problem is unchanged and even getting worse, should we allow the company to expand as it wishes, given the current economic climate?
The local Ipswich evening paper states:
P and O chairman Sir Jeffrey Sterling already has a seat on the E.F. board thanks to a 20–8 per cent. slice in the group. Shipping experts believe European Ferries is becoming ripe for the taking because of the weak position of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, which runs Felixstowe port.
That did not happen last year. We were unaware of the P and 0 company's interest in the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. That interest has come to light relatively recently. If a major company such as P and 0 wishes to take over or buy in a large proportion of the shares of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, it may take an entirely different view—given the economic climate and the fact that there will be, in principle at least, a fixed link across the channel — based entirely on economic reasons, as to whether this development should go ahead. If that is the case, it is important that Parliament should recognise that if the company is taken over it may not, as a point of principle, require the development to go ahead.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: That is not true.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman says that that is not true. I acknowledge his interest in the matter, but I am not convinced by his statement that that is not true because throughout the entire episode the sands have shifted daily. That is why, a year later, the promoters are asking for more time on the Bill. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will deploy those arguments to suggest that there has been a radical change in the past 12 months and that the House should recognise that change if it wishes to give the Bill more time.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to get the facts right? I know that he would wish to be fair. The evidence is that Felixstowe has shown a 20 per cent. increase in containers this year. There has been an increase of 38 per cent. in its freightliner business this year. The management of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company — the promoters of the Bill — says that the letter from which the hon. Gentleman quoted was addressed privately to its employees. The management goes on to make it clear that it confidently stands by its predictions and that the letter in no way bears the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch).

Mr. Stott: I can only quote to the hon. Gentleman the contents of the memorandum dated 27 August 1986. It was signed by Mr. Blackhall, the managing director, and stated:
The shortfall in income has been further aggravated by the fact that worldwide too many ships are chasing too few containers".
Felixstowe is a very good port, as I have always acknowledged, and does a very good job. We object to its

expansion because it would not be in the national interest and it would affect other existing ports because of the total volume of cargo handled in the United Kingdom.
I end by referring to the letter that was mentioned at the beginning of the debate on a point of order, again from the managing director, Mr. Blackhall. It states:
As I am sure you are only too well aware the progress of the above Bill"—
the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill—
has to date been very slow, due largely to the delaying tactics of a small coterie of Labour Members.
We have advanced our arguments on the principle of not accepting this private Bill. We have done that in the best spirit and intentions of the House. Our comments are on the record for all to see. I say to the management of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company that we were elected and it was not. We have a democratic right to do what we are doing. If the managing director of that company wishes to address remarks to the House, I suggest that he stands for Parliament and does exactly that. Those of us who were elected to the House will continue to do our duty despite that company.

Sir Paul Hawkins: I shall comment briefly on the carry-over of this Bill. My interest in the matter was aroused mainly because it was my constituent, Gordon Parker, who started Felixstowe docks. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) say that Felixstowe docks has been one of the outstanding commercial successes in Britain. But I fear that jealousies have been aroused in neighbouring towns such as Ipswich. I am sad that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), who is a very good Member of Parliament, supports those jealousies. I must urge the speedy carry-over and completion of the Bill because it affects all of East Anglia, where I was born and part of which I have represented for the past 20 years.
The whole region benefits tremendously from the Felixstowe docks. The amount of traffic there has increased and businesses have grown up round the docks. Opposition Members have made some good jokes about this affair, but it is a serious matter for thousands of people who work not only in the docks but in ancillary businesses, such as transport. Other businesses have also sprung up as a result of our entry into Europe. Traffic that used to travel north-south now travels west-east because of Felixstowe's proximity to the continent, thus generating much more employment along with, thank goodness, a necessity to bypass many of the market towns in my area.
Consequently, I support carrying over the Bill, indeed, it is a tragedy that it will have to be carried over. Opposition to it has been a disaster for the region. No sane man, no matter of what political hue, could want the region to be damaged as severely as it will be if the Bill is not carried over or given a fair wind.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) challenged me to talk to dockers. But I recently went to Southampton to talk to dockers who are extremely concerned about the Bill continuing. They legitimately say that in the past two years they have tremendously improved productivity at the port of Southampton. The port is now handling a substantially increased number of


containers. Moreover, capacity at Southampton could be dramatically increased within the existing area of hardstanding.
Southampton's dockers also point upriver to several miles of what used to be attractive mud flats that supported a substantial population of waders. The flats were reclaimed on the ground, originally, that Southampton docks would be extended. There is nothing that we can do, and that area is now lost as a natural habitat for birds. But if there is an absolute necessity for more container berths, a strong argument could be made for developing those flats, where the natural environment has already been lost.
Hon. Members must consider whether the House should continue with what is, in many ways, an archaic procedure. I refer to the private Bill procedure. At the beginning of the debate, we argued about the number of hours that had been spent on the Bill. But Opposition Members can cite precedents going back to 1945 showing that there have never been two opposed carry-over motions on such a Bill. During the last century, Parliament spent far more time on private business than it does now. In some sessions more than 50 per cent. of parliamentary time was devoted to private Bills. A tremendous amount of work was done on Bills promoting the railways and canals. For example, in, I think, the 1890s, the Manchester Ship Canal Company had to make three attempts at getting the ship canal legislation through.
People came to believe that the private Bill procedure was unsatisfactory. Alternative procedures such as public inquiries were developed, which I mentioned last year when we debated the carry-over motion. It is always difficult to persuade people that they have had a fair hearing when they do not want something to be done to their environment. Many people are unhappy if they lose their case at a public inquiry. But the majority of people would feel that a public inquiry was more likely to give them a fair hearing than the private Bill procedure would.
Members of Parliament do not have time to scrutinise all the planning arguments involved. Those who have seen the proceedings in the Channel Tunnel Bill will have tremendous sympathy for the few Members of Parliament sitting on that Committee. They will also feel that ultimately none of the objectors will think that they have had a fair hearing or that their objections were considered. Inevitably, hon. Members have other duties and cannot devote half a year or more to the arguments adduced.
The Channel Tunnel Bill gives us an extreme example, but the Felixstowe Bill well illustrates the problems facing objectors. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the ramblers and some other interest groups managed to find people to put in objections, but if they had not done so, it would have been difficult for local objections to be heard by the Committee.
The promoters could engage barristers to put their case, but the opposition often had to use people who were not legally qualified. Consequently, the odds were stacked against them. There was little opportunity for the ordinary individual to put his case to the Committee. However, as long as someone had a clear interest in an issue, the public inquiry inspector would normally let him put forward his case or his objections. Therefore, I believe that the public inquiry procedure is far more satisfactory.
Last time we debated the carry-over motion it was said that the promoters could not proceed via a planning application or planning procedures, and that because the original development had been covered by a Bill, there would have to be another Bill. But it would have been easy for the promoters to go for a local public inquiry into the planning issues and, having gained permission, they could have gone for a Bill to implement that public inquiry's decision. Instead, the Bill tries to eliminate any opportunity of a public inquiry.
The House should consider the procedures surrounding private Bills. As a result of the fuss made about a quorum, a committee of inquiry was set up to look into the question of private Bills. I believe that the House should consider the issues carefully. Perhaps it should make it clear to promoters that they will not get an easy ride unless they have gone for a public inquiry where local and national issues can be tested.
The sad thing is that, although we have debated the issue for 15 hours or more, the idea of a national ports policy has not been developed. We have not managed to persuade a Minister to say whether the Government believe that there is a surplus port capacity or an overwhelming deficit. No one has been able to say what the impact of the Channel tunnel will be on the demand for container berths in this country. Until we have that information, it will be impossible for the House or anybody else to judge whether there is a strong case for such a development. Against that, we must weigh the question of protecting the natural environment.
It has been strongly argued that the estuary is one of the few large estuaries in Britain that has not been substantially encroached upon. Encroachments have been made onto similar marshes at Southampton and Tilbury. Until the land that has already been lost has been fully developed, there is no substantial case for continuing at Felixstowe.
In spite of all the hours, the issues have not been resolved. A planning inquiry would have dealt with the issues more effectively. The Government should make a statement to the House on national ports policy. They should state whether they believe that there is surplus capacity, whether it is right to move trade from one port to another and whether they genuinely believe that extra trade could be created at Felixstowe, since no one else believes that.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West suggested that by selling off the land and developing it as a dock, money could he raised for higher education. I have no doubt that we could sell off many parts of our national heritage. Much of our coastline and many ancient monuments could be sold, but I am sure that the majority involved in higher education do not want us to sell our national assets to provide an acceptable level of higher education. I am sure that those involved believe that we should not finance higher education by selling the environment to make a quick profit.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: How does the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) square that argument with the fact that Trinity college, Cambridge, which certainly qualifies as being part of our higher education system, is the owner of much of the land provided for the expansion? Its fellows unanimously concluded that on all


grounds—to help Trinity with its higher education, to help the environment and to help the future of East Anglia —they would support the Bill.

Mr. Bennett: I am aware of the greed of individuals. I can understand how some may argue that selling off the environment is worth while to help a particular cause such as higher education. However, it is a sad fact that most of our natural assets have disappeared because someone has wanted to raise money. Almost all the slag heaps and slate quarry tips were created in the name of raising money either for an individual or for a good cause. As a result, we have lost some of our natural environment.
I am disappointed that the fellows of Trinity college do not have more interest in our environment, but I can understand why they believe that raising money for the college is more important than protecting the natural environment.
The House should not, at this stage, agree to a carryover motion. The House should decide that the Bill has had sufficient time. It should suggest to the promoters that they take the Bill away and then make up their minds whether the company will continue as a company or whether it should be taken over by P and O. I understand that P and O has considerable interests in other ports and if it takes over it might decide not to make any proposals.
Having sorted out its own financial situation, if the new company wants to go ahead, it should make a planning application so that an inquiry can take place to test the national interest in connection with ports policy against the protection of the environment. An inquiry could test local implications for communications, the impact upon East Anglian roads and the impact on rail traffic through Ipswich. If the inspector then recommends to the Minister that the proposals are acceptable, have decided upon local requirements, conservation and parks, the company can come back to the House and say that it has been through all the consultation. In those circumstances, the House would give an easy passage to a new Bill.
Until the promoters are able to convince a planning inquiry and convince the objectors that they have had a fair hearing, some hon. Members believe it unfair to allow the Bill to proceed and will not only oppose the motion tonight but will continue to oppose the measure through its remaining stages.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) seems to think that it is important to get the Bill through. We have heard about how concerned the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West is to get the Bill through. The last time that we debated the Bill they were so busy talking about it among themselves that they did not move the right amendments at the appropriate time. That was unfortunate. I question whether the House should have to find extra injury time. They thought it very important to press the measure, but they did not supervise the way in which hon. Members were encouraged to vote.

Sir John Page: Is there not something rather creditable that during proceedings on a Private Member's Bill, on a private occasion, the Whips were not nudging hon. Members and asking them to say something or other? That shows that amateurism is alive and happy and living at Westminster.

Mr. Bennett: This is not a Private Member's Bill but a private Bill. Surely it was incumbent upon the promoters to ensure that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill knew

what was happening. The hon. Member was advised by a respected hon. Member who used to be a Clerk in the House, so it was unfortunate that he got the procedure wrong.
How serious are the promoters? The evidence is that they want a blank cheque from the House so that they can develop the site—possibly. There is no certainty that the company will exist or that the trade will exist to make an economic and viable port.
I hope that the House will reject the motion so that the promoters have to start again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I intervene only briefly because the motion is strictly procedural. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) has had his half-term arrangements spoilt. I sympathise with him, because I have a similar problem.
The hon. Member for Wigan and others have said that the Bill has taken up a great amount of time. That is true. The Bill is controversial, and hon. Members have understandably used the parliamentary procedures to extend the debates.
The Government believe that the Bill is sufficiently important for the House to have a further opportunity to consider the arguments for and against it on the basis of the Select Committee's recommendations, which incorporate various amendments and safeguards. It would be unfortunate not to agree to the motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I urge the House to agree to the motion and allow the Bill to be carried over.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The promoters want the Bill, and although it is a private Bill the Government are involved in it. The Bill is wide in its implications and not what we usually expect from a private Bill. It is limited in scope, but it has serious implications beyond the port of Felixstowe to ports in other regions.
Much has been said about Felixstowe's record and in that sense I support the Felixstowe dock workers. I do not want to see them deprived of their jobs. Since 1983, however, there has been a 24 per cent. reduction in the labour force of registered dock workers at certain ports in the northern region and the south-west, and a 30 per cent. reduction at Southampton and London.
The Bill will achieve what the Government have wanted to do since they came to power in 1979. The Government's plan embraces the National Dock Labour Board and the dock labour scheme and is not confined to Felixstowe. The Government know that if the non-scheme ports are extended, the number of workers employed at scheme ports will eventually decline and the scheme will wither on the vine.
The opportunities that the Government had in the early 1980s to attack the scheme were deferred. They did not want a confrontation with registered dock workers and the union representing them, so they sought a more subtle approach. First, they removed the limited but important planning regulations that governed how, when and whether ports could be developed. Financial constraints had been placed on ports and their development, and these were removed by the Tory Government as a deliberate act


of policy to ensure that the development of non-scheme ports would eventually lead to the abolition of the dock labour scheme and registered dock workers.
I worked on the Mersey for 28 years, and I am concerned that the port authorities have not carried out a feasibility study into the consequences of the proposed construction on the natural meandering of the river and the effect on other ports. I have seen nothing so far that suggests that there has been a suitable feasibility study. I worked with a scientific and industrial research organisation on a major development in the port of Liverpool that took the best part of two years to complete. We carried out tidal and current observations and water sampling for salinity and suspended solids. Various new technological methods were used to try to ascertain what effects the construction would have. It is almost certain, however, that there is no way of predicting with certainty the tidal consequences once a construction of the sort that is proposed has been completed. No hydrographical surveyor, for example, would give any undertaking of what would happen to the meandering of a river once such a construction took place.
Merseyside ports other than Liverpool were adversely affected following the completion of the Liverpool development. For example, the Garston docks were cut off entirely as a tidal port for a while. A section of the river miles away from the construction began to silt up, creating major dredging problems. This can have an effect on a port's viability because of conservancy costs.
We should know why the Government have persisted in pressing this private Bill through the House. If the Bill had received a fair wind, it would not have taken such a long time to complete its passage through the House. Those of my hon. Friends who have opposed it have advanced serious reasons for so doing. They are concerned, as I am, about the consequences of the Bill's enactment for Ipswich and ports in other regions, including the north-west and the south-west. I have referred already to job losses in other areas, and if the Bill is enacted and the scheme goes ahead, other ports will suffer further erosion. That is inevitable, because demand in finite. There is no evidence that the Felixstowe port will attract new business, and the proposed development, if it takes place, will be to the detriment of other ports.
This measure should never have come before the House as a private Bill. The implications are far too serious and far-reaching for it to come before us in such a form. Those of us who represent port constituencies have a right to draw attention to the serious environmental consequences of the Bill's enactment. The balance between the north and the south must be restored and nothing should be done to increase the division that exists between the northern regions and the south of England. I am mindful also of the effect that the proposed development at Felixstowe would have on London and Southampton.
When the Chairman of Ways and Means was questioned by myself and others on this issue, he showed some concern about the way in which private Bills proceed in the House. It appears to me and many of my hon. Friends that the Bill is one of the worst examples of the way in which such measures are dealt with in this place. I hope that cognisance will be taken of that by yourself,

Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Chairman of Ways and Means, so that no private Bills come before the House in future—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Loyden: —that have such serious implications and disguised political intentions, which in this instance are intended to destroy the dock labour scheme. It was established in 1947 by the late Ernie Bevin to remove the inhumanities that had been suffered by dock workers. Ernie Bevin was mindful of the impoverishment and sweated labour that existed in our ports. It seems that the Government want the old system to prevail once more, but perhaps in a different form. The motion should be opposed for the reasons that 1 have advanced.

Mr. Tim Yeo: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has deplored the job losses that have occurred at some scheme ports. I am sure that everyone recognises that the only reason for these losses is the failure of the scheme ports to compete. I am glad to say that that is a failure of which Felixtowe has never been guilty. Even those who oppose the Bill, or the motion, have never suggested that the port has failed to compete domestically or internationally.
The hon. Member for Garston is a regular contributor to our Felixstowe debates, and some other regular contributors have spoken this evening, including the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Wigan (Mr. Stott). I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wigan was unable to remain at home with his wife during the half-term holiday because of the need for him to be in the Chamber this evening. Having heard his remarks, many might have concluded that it would have been better for his wife and the House if the hon. Gentleman had remained at home.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) who has been fighting for the Bill in various ways for 18 months. His work deserves a warm tribute from all my hon. Friends and all who are interested in the prosperity of East Anglia.
We should issue a welcome to some newcomers to the Felixstowe debate. At the beginning of this evening's debate we had a contribution from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore).

Mr. Sedgemore: I could not get in the previous debate on the Bill.

Mr. Yeo: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should say that. The hon. Gentleman made no contribution to the previous debate and it appears that he did not stay for the Division, despite his great interest in the matter. He wanted to contribute to the debate but he could not stay for the vote. The same was true on Second Reading. He made no contribution to that debate, nor did he stay for the vote. He made some allegations about the closure motion, but it was he who asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds about a closure motion. No doubt the hon. Gentleman was very keen to get away, because had he stayed too long he might have been forced to vote for the first time. That reveals the hon. Gentleman's positition on this matter. All we can say is that his interest in Felixstowe seems to be of rather recent origin.
The public may conclude that the hon. Member for Hackney. South and Shoreditch is here this evening solely for the purpose of making trouble, but not out of concern for parliamentary procedure or anything to do with Felixstowe or the Bill. He managed to make a few irrelevant and cheap jibes about monetarism, but then threw his full weight against the carry-over motion and, by implication, agains jobs in Felixstowe. That makes his position on employment clear.
Earlier, we had the presence of another newcomer, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I am sorry that he has not stayed. I was hoping that we might have had a contribution. If we had, that, I believe, would have been the first contribution from any member of either the Liberal party or the Social Democratic party. Like the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did not vote either on the carry-over motion in July or on Second Reading. But I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Gentleman was at least present for part of this debate, as hitherto the alliance has been conspicuous by its absence. What else can we expect from the alliance, which is always so ready to proclaim its concern about unemployment and lack of infrastructure spending, yet which, when it must stand up and be counted, quietly melts away into the night? It is then left to my hon. Friends to press ahead with specific and practical proposals.
The voters seem to have rumbled this habit of the alliance. I gather that today's opinion polls show a substantial reduction in alliance support. I believe that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has spotted that trend, because he has announced that he will not contest his seat—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the carry-over motion.

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds made an eloquent speech this evening, as he has done on previous occasions. He briefly outlined the progress that has led to this stage. The history is one of consistent obstruction by the Labour party, consistent disinterest by the alliance and consistent support by Conservative Members for a Bill that will enhance employment prospects in Suffolk and elsewhere in East Anglia. It will bring prosperity to the region and strengthen our international trading links with Europe and elsewhere.
As has been pointed out by other hon. Members, Felixstowe is a great private enterprise success story. That fact has no doubt provoked the Labour Opposition and the disinterest of the alliance. Perhaps there is another reason — that an expanded and successful Felixstowe, which a couple of years ago showed its reluctance to join other dockers in politically motivated industrial action, might make it harder for the Opposition's friends to bring the country to its knees in support of a destructive and politically motivated strike.
I have referred to the support of Conservative Members for the Bill, but really impressive is the wide support that it has enjoyed from others. It is much more impressive than the pathetic list of sectional interests consisting of bodies concerned only with Ipswich that was referred to by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. In contrast to that, every significant and reputable industry and commercial organisation in East Anglia has

expressed support for the Bill. Several tiers of local government responsible for the Felixstowe area have, after some discussion, given their support as well.
Apart from the valuable contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, South-West (Sir A. Grant), I am particularly impressed by the way in which the trade unions have given their support. I do not refer necessarily to the trade union headquarters in London or to the trade union leaders who are remote from the action at Felixstowe. I am referring to the local members of the Transport and General Workers Union who work at Felixstowe. They know quite a lot about the situation, and they know how the Bill will serve the interests of the local work force and local community. They have a more direct interest than anyone in the success of this measure.
I am sorry that so far we have not had a contribution from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). His contributions have enlivened these debates on previous occasions. I merely note a curious reluctance on his part to speak this evening. He seems to be leaving it later and later. I noted his absence from the Chamber for a considerable period. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is now in his place, and I look forward to his contribution. I shall ensure that there is plenty of time for it.
I do not wish to go into much detailed argument. about the Bill. We have had plenty of opportunity to do that in the past. It was debated perfectly adequately on Second Reading, and it was in Committee for a long time. I congratulate the Felixstowe company on the considerable lengths to which it has gone to respond to local expressions of concern about the environment, the effect on navigation and so on. The real issue with which the Bill—and, by implication, the carry-over motion — deal is jobs. Anyone who fails to support the motion is seeking to block the creation of thousands of new jobs in and around Felixstowe. I have no doubt that the public will form their own conclusions about any hon. Member who decides to oppose the motion.
Labour Members have tried to raise the issue of the P and O shareholding in European Ferries. The relevance of that shareholding seems to be obscure in the extreme. Even if P and O decided to make an outright takeover hid for European Ferries, the Felixstowe dock company will still remain in the private sector. It will still be the subsidiary of a public limited company whose shareholders will still have the same interest in the successful and prosperous expansion of the dock. They will have precisely the same interests as the present shareholders in the parent company of European Ferries.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Does not my hon. Friend, with his great authority on these matters, also agree that it would be most unlikely that a company such as P and 0 would contemplate investing in the Felixstowe port unless it was confident of its future prosperity?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, it would be of additional comfort to know that a major company such as P and O, headed by such a shrewd investor as Sir Jeffrey Sterling, should be contemplating a takeover of the parent company. The fact that he has made a substantial investment is of great encouragement to us all.
As a veteran of the Second Reading and the previous carry-over motion debates, I very much hope that this is


the last time on which I shall have to speak on the Bill until it returns to us for Third Reading. I urge the House to pass the motion.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken tonight, I have been present during the long debates on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill—not because I want to delay its passage unduly but because I am profoundly concerned about its contents. I strongly object to the carry-over motion. I do not want to rub salt in the wounds of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), but I and some of my colleagues were amazed when we saw him talking busily with another hon. Member at the point when he should have called something in this Chamber. I am sure that he will not be in a similar position tonight. I notice that he is without company. I am sure that he is giving his complete concentration to tonight's debate.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady is complaining about. Is she complaining that the amendment that she supported was carried? Is that what is upsetting her? I should have thought, since she voted for it, that she would want to see it in the Bill.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am saying that it is rather strange that the hon. Gentleman should have started his speech tonight by saying how long the Bill had taken when it need not have taken so long had he been fully awake on the last occasion we debated it.
I am profoundly concerned about the Bill's implications. On many occasions I have spoken of its environmental and employment implications and the fact that it will affect ports policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) spoke passionately about that. He knows better than any hon. Member in the Chamber tonight how much the Bill will affect docks and dockers. The areas that he represents are profoundly affected by the Government's policies.
The Government are giving the Bill a nod, a wink and a nudge, as they have done on many occasions since we first considered it. As my hon. Friend said earlier, so wittily and humourously, one of the reasons there has been such dedication by Government Members to ensuring the passage of the Bill, regardless of what other important business the House should be considering and instead of giving us extra time to consider the Bill in the next Session of Parliament—there are all sorts of interests at play in the consideration of the Bill and ensuring its passage—is that the company in question was one of the largest contributors to the Tory party. Last year, the managing director—

Mr. Yeo: rose—

Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman has taken up enough of our time, and I shall not give way.
Obviously, there is great interest on the part of the Government because I understand that in 1985 the company did not make its normal contribution to the Tory party. It did not want to be seen as oiling the hands of those who were supposed to be sitting in judgment on the Bill.

Mr. Yeo: rose—

Mrs. Clwyd: I was a member of the Opposed Private Bill Committee. Four Members of Parliament sat in judgment on important considerations — ports policy, employment policy and environmental policy. Those matters are of great concern to everybody, not least those dockers in other parts of Britain who will be affected if the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill becomes law. As a member of that Committee, I felt concerned that we, as people making a judgment at the end of the evidence, were unable to call independent witnesses.
We were never able to find answers to these questions. What will happen when the fixed Channel link is in place? How will it affect container traffic in this country? What will that do to the port of Felixstowe? Will the extra container capacity be necessary when the Channel tunnel will have a greater impact on the carrying of containers in future? Every time the Minister was asked those questions he refused to answer. How could people sitting in judgment reach a proper conclusion at the end of the day that the Bill should be supported, when an essential part of the evidence was not before them? In no way could one — [Interruption.] There is so much noise in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I cannot hear myself think.
As a member of that Committee, I could no longer come to a proper conclusion without hearing the evidence. The evidence was denied us. It is still being denied us, and I cannot see how in all honesty the House can come to a proper and well-thought-out conclusion on the matter without knowing what effect the Channel fixed link will have on container traffic in the future. Not only that, hut, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston said, we believe that the measure is a way of rolling back the dock labour scheme as we know it, giving the private ports that are not in the scheme an opportunity to encroach further into the area of ports such as Ipswich which at present are members of the scheme. As my hon. Friend said, there will be profound policy implications for the whole of ports policy.
Those are the issues that we have not been able to discuss properly in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. That is why, if I am glad of one thing, it is that the whole procedure will now be reviewed by the House so that in future, we hope, a private company with vast resources will not be enabled to get planning permission by the back door while the objectors who have so few resources in comparison cannot present a proper case. What has happened in Committee and during the debates on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill is an anachronism. In the 1980s, it is intolerable that we should make policy in that way because a private company has the money to get planning permission by the back door.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: I am concluding on that point. That is why I vigorously oppose—

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mrs. Clwyd: I was about to conclude. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I was tempted to carry on, given the fact that so many hon. Members are becoming agitated by what I am saying. However, I know that some of my hon. Friends also want to participate in the debate.
I vigorously oppose the carry-on motion because I believe that the matters raised by the Felixstowe Dock and


Railway Bill should properly have been the subject of a public planning inquiry, and not brought in by the back door through Parliament.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is well acquainted with the procedures of the House in regard to private Bills. I recall that she spent a considerable time—I say this with the greatest respect to her—seeking to make sure that she did not sit on that Committee.

Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening.

Mr. Cash: Furthermore, on Second Reading, when I spoke, it was clear that the hon. Lady was doing as much as possible to make sure that she would not attend the proceedings in the earlier stages of the private Bill procedure. It strikes me that she is singularly ill-qualified in this instance to criticise the procedures upon which we are now engaged.
The hon. Lady's point, which was verging on a point of substance, was whether it would be desirable not to adopt the private Bill procedure in view of the fact that a Committee is due to be set up in the next Session to deal with the private Bill procedure. She wondered whether it would be appropriate for the procedure to be replaced by the so-called normal planning procedures. I have news for the hon. Lady, or at least I think I have. The normal planning procedures would be far more likely to lead to all the potential corruption in dealing with planning permission and the difficulties that we have had with local authorities in the past than would a distinguished Committee of the House.
Such a Committee is not composed only of Conservative Members, but, in fairness to petitioners for and against the Bill, includes Opposition Members such as the hon. Lady. It is bizarre for the hon. Lady to criticise a procedure which she first avoided and then, having participated in it, to criticise that procedure despite the fact that it follows ancient tradition and procedure hallowed by many years of usage and going back to the 18th century. It has enabled many major projects to go through by means of a fair and quasi-judicial system.

Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman obviously speaks from some ignorance. If he had followed the previous debates, he would know that one of the reasons why I left the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill Committee was that I was profoundly worried about the way in which it was proceeding. Mr. Speaker knows of my anxiety about that, because I wrote to him at various times asking to be released from the Committee. I made the point that I thought the Opposed Private Bill Committee procedure ought to be overhauled. That was the only way that we were able to get a three-hour debate on that subject. As a result of that, a Committee is reviewing the procedure. That should be applauded, not denigrated.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks, because they reminded me of a similar and analagous procedure related to what was then the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill 1976. At that time the Labour party singularly failed to achieve its objective of ensuring that ship repairers were nationalised. The hon. Lady may have engaged in certain tactics on the

Committee on which she served in order to improve and enhance the procedure. I take that to be the meaning of what she has said.
The hon. Lady is making her points against the background of a long and ancient tradition which, through impartial procedures, enables petitioners and promoters to have a fair hearing before an all-party Committee. All-party Committees of that kind, including Select Committees, deserve rather more respect than some hon. Members have given them in their speeches.
Hon. Members will know that I rarely filibuster on matters of this kind and I have no intention of doing so now. I wish to make substantive points. It is important to bear in mind that the privileges of the House and the importance, respect and integrity with which the House is credited depend to a great extent on the impartiality which is evident to anybody who has had an opportunity, as the hon. Lady has had, to participate in the private Bill procedure. I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that.
I know that the hon. Lady's remarks were in no way intended to be a reflection on the Committee on which she sat. If the hon. Lady wishes to dispute that, she can intervene immediately. She does not intervene and by implication is agreeing with me that that Committee was an excellent one. I shall now move to my next point, which is why there should be a carry-over motion despite the carry-on of the hon. Lady, and why it would be desirable for us to pass this motion to ensure that the Bill continues in the procedure on which it has already embarked.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend not being unfair to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)? I think that he is, because it is clear from column 1014 of Hansard of 12 February 1986 that she was led down the garden path and led astray by no less a person than the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who persuaded her not to do her duty.

Mr. Cash: These revelations leave me completely dumbfounded. I sincerely hope that the reference in question will not be expunged from the record, on the ground that it contains a scurrilous attack upon the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. I invite her to intervene if the allegation of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) is untrue. However, as the hon. Lady, as on the previous occasion, has decided not to challenge me by intervening on this point, I have to infer that it must be carried in favour of Conservative Members.
In view of the attacks that have been made upon Conservative Members, other substantive points have to be put on record. I recall that during the Second Reading debate reference was made to the Transport and General Workers Union. I am tempted to ask myself, as I did on Second Reading, whether the activities of the Opposition have anything to do with TGWU policy. I invite the Opposition to dispute that point with me, if they wish to do so. There seems to be a strange connection between the TGWU and the importance of enterprise both to the people of Felixstowe and those in the areas adjoining Felixstowe. Could it be that the TGWU — in other words the Labour party and its representatives on the other side of the House—wishes to deny the people of Felixstowe the job and enterprise opportunities that the Bill offers?

Mr. Loyden: The TGWU is concerned about all its members, including those in the ports of Liverpool, Bristol and Southampton. The union has to take an overall view. It will defend the rights of the Felixstowe workers, but it will not—and in my view it should not—adopt a policy that would result in an increase of labour in one port at the expense of a diminution of labour in another port. It is not the job of trade unions to create further unemployment in areas such as Merseyside. Unemployment there is already high.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that philosophical point. He has made it quite clear that a balancing act takes place within the TGWU. It believes that prosperity in a given area depends upon the diminution of prosperity in another area. The Felixstowe dock and harbour proposals are generating enterprise in that area. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that enterprise opportunities should be equally available in his area.
It would be unfortunate if a dog-in-the-manger attitude were to develop. For reasons that may have something to do with the activities of Militant Tendency in his part of the country, the Liverpool dock and harbour system is not merely crumbling into the River Mersey; it is falling into it. It would be sad if the people of Felixstowe had to face a similar catastrophe. Conservative Members would resist it at all costs.
We wish the hon. Gentleman's area to be prosperous, just as we wish the area that is now under discussion to be prosperous. [Interruption.] The amount of barracking that is to be heard because I have made that perfectly sensible point merely illustrates the difference between the attitude of Conservative Members and the attitude of the Opposition. We want the whole of this country to be prosperous. The Opposition want only those areas that they can pick and choose to be prosperous, which means only those parts of the country where they have an electoral advantage. They seem unable to understand the idea of something being created virtually out of nothing, as is the case with Felixstowe. It was the late lamented Keith Wickenden, whom 1 knew and who used to be the Member of Parliament for Dorking, who had the initiative and enterprise to start this great venture. By carrying the Bill over to the next Session we shall be paying tribute to the memory of a great man of enterprise.
I have referred to what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley rather quaintly described as a carry-on motion. I have some sympathy with her choice of words, but it might be helpful to remind the House of the circumstances in which such motions arise.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I move, That the Question be now put?

Mr. Speaker: I shall not accept that motion until the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has finished his speech. After that, I shall consider it.

Mr. Cash: The circumstances are set out in page 1041 in the 20th edition of "Erskine May" under the heading, "Further suspension of bills". I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for not ending my speech, as this is an important issue which is germane to the subject under discussion, and it often crops up in regard to private Bills.
Because the private Bill procedure is essentially judicial, it is important to have continuity between one Session and

the next to ensure that important private business, in the course of which many people have gone to considerable trouble, time and often expense—I refer to petitioners for the Bill and objectors to it—

Mr. Sedgemore: Say something that we understand.

Mr. Cash: That is an interesting intervention. I am merely referring to "Erskine May". The carry-over motion—

Mr. Sedgemore: I have not understood a word for 10 minutes.

Mr. Cash: I am disturbed to hear that. In his books, one of which is suitably entitled, "Power Failure" and another of which is called "Mr. Secretary of State", the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) describes himself—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is a bit wide of the Felixstowe dock and I cannot relate the carry-over motion to it.

Mr. Cash: Perhaps I might just finish my sentence. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch describes himself as a practising barrister, but if ever there was a case of the hon. Gentleman demonstrating that he could not handle a dock brief, this is it.
I hope that by that slight aside I have demonstrated — [HON. MEMBERS: "This is a filibuster."] I am demonstrating—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech relative to the matter and would you now accept the closure?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would not accept the closure until the hon. Gentleman had finished. He has been speaking for a good length of time and I think that he is making his point.

Mr. Cash: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I am making a relevant point about the carryover motion. I can do no better than refer to that part of "Erskine May" which specifically deals with the suspension of Bills. I cannot think of anything that is more germane and relevant to the proceedings in question — [HON. MEMBERS: "Filibuster."] If I may proceed despite the barracking and the filibustering that is taking place on the Opposition Benches, I shall get to the point that I wish to make.
The conduct of the Bill and whether or not it is to be carried over is directly related to the procedures that are hallowed by the words of "Erskine May". I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, know all about this.

Mr. Sedgemore: Get on with it.

Mr. Cash: It is important that Opposition Members, as they do not have any interest in the matter whatsoever, should have the benefit of what is said in "Erskine May". As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has reached for the book in question, I refer him to page 1041.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I have come into the chamber because I am interested in what is being discussed. I have looked at the list of Members who have spoken, and I note that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who is now


accusing my hon. Friend of filibustering, spoke for 32 minutes. That was a filibuster of the worst order, and my hon. Friend should be allowed to continue.

Mr. Terry Lewis: In view of what is happening on the Conservative Benches, I think we ought to put it to you again, Mr. Speaker, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that, because I understand that the proposer of the motion has not yet spoken, although he moved it formally.

Hon. Members: No, he did not.

Mr. Cash: I have only one more point to make. With reference to suspension orders, "Erskine May" states:
Members may speak more than once in debates on suspension motions, and having spoken to the main question may then move amendments.
In view of that and the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) wishes to speak more than once in the debate, I am glad to sit down.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: In view—

Hon. Members: With the leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need the leave of the House to speak again.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Because the unusual nature of the procedure might not be entirely familiar to hon. Members, I thought it would be helpful if I brought "Erskine May" with me and quoted the relevant section. With regard to motions dealing with the suspension of Bills until the following Session, "Erskine May" states:
Members may speak more than once in debates on suspension motions".
That is what I am proposing to do.
At the beginning of the debate, I confined myself simply to supporting the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I have not, therefore, in any way dealt with the issues that have been raised, quite properly, by Opposition members. The most important thing to recognise is that the House has been seized of this matter for a total of 160 hours, a great proportion of which was spent in Committee.

Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all know that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir F. Griffiths) has already spoken. Is it your intention to allow all of us to make another speech?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) moved the motion formally, as I understand it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, that is what the hon. Gentleman told me. I understood that he had moved the motion formally.

Mr. Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was in the House when the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds proposed the motion, and he made a speech; he did not move it formally.

Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall give a ruling on this. I understand from "Erskine May" that it is possible for hon. Members to speak more than once on a suspension motion.

Mr. Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I return to my original point. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has already made a very forceful and able speech, is it your intention to allow other hon. Members to speak again?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, according to "Erskine May", hon. Members may speak again.

Mr. Boyes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that, as a point of clarification, it must be stated that the motion was not moved formally. In fact, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) spoke for a minimum of five minutes, and possibly for a little longer. The record will show that. I think that that must be taken into consideration when you make your ruling.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you accept that the fact that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has the right to speak twice does not prevent you from accepting a speech only once or from accepting a closure motion? You are not in any way prevented from accepting a closure motion because the hon. Member is seeking to catch your eye for a second time. On that basis, I ask you once again whether you will accept a closure motion.

Mr. Speaker: I shall not do so at this point. The debate can continue until 10 o'clock, and it is already half-past nine. I am not prepared to accept a closure motion at this stage. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has quoted from "Erskine May". He has spoken more than once, and other hon. Members may also do so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the record will show that you said that you would be inclined to take a closure motion at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)—
Sir Eldon Griffiths: No.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The record will show that. The hon. Member for Stafford has finished his speech. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds caught your eye and has exercised his right to speak. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you can accept a closure motion. You gave us—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point. I may have misunderstood what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said to me, but I thought that he had moved the motion formally. He speaks for the promoters of the Bill and has the right to speak again. However, I hope that he will do so briefly so that we may then come to a conclusion.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Lest there be any misunderstanding of what I said to you, 1 want to make it clear that I spoke at the beginning of the debate very formally because I dealt only with the procedural points. It would not be correct to say, nor did I intend you to understand me to say, Mr. Speaker, that I had merely moved the motion formally. In fact, the Chairman of Ways and Means placed the motion upon the Order Paper and I spoke to his motion. I very scrupulously avoided going into the substance of the matter because I understood this to be largely a procedural debate.
However, as the debate has developed, inevitably — and I suppose rightly—hon. Members have gone into the substance of the Bill. It was quite impossible for the Chair to prevent that. It is only right that, as I have been


speaking for the promoters of the Bill during the long hours that the House has been seized of this matter, some of the questions that have been raised about the Bill and the intentions of the promoters should now be answered. It would make for an inadequate debate, certainly not a debate that could be closed at this point, if the other side of the case were not put. I shall briefly do that.
One issue raised was whether the Committee had had adequate time or opportunity to consider the matters before it and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) went into great detail about that. She was appointed to the Committee. It has always been my understanding that when one is appointed to a private Bill Committee by the House one has a duty to discharge the responsibilities of members of that Committee. The hon. Lady chose to absent herself. It is true, as I understand it, that she wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, about that, and no doubt you sent her a reply, but it is quite unacceptable for the hon. Lady to come to the House and say that there was no opportunity to consider the Bill fully in Committee when she had voluntarily removed herself from the Committee.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that in the review of private Bill procedure which is due to take place next Session one of the items that we might hope will be top of the agenda of the Procedure Committee will be that of people absenting themselves from Committees, as a result of which there is grave inconvenience to the petitioners, the Committee and the public in general?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: That may be, but I am dealing strictly with what has been said on the Floor of the House tonight on the subject of the Bill. I say again, in case the hon. Lady did not hear me, that it is not satisfactory for her to complain that the Committee was not able to deal with the issues put before it when she removed herself from the Committee and did not listen.
In view of the hon. Lady's speech, it is also right to say that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who spoke at some length on this matter, quoted the relevant passages from "Erskine May" which make it clear beyond peradventure that the hon. Lady should have stayed on the Committee and done her duty. She went to him and he said that he had advised her—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that the hon. Member wanted specifically to reply to today's debate. He is going back over earlier debates. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, although concerned about this matter, are also concerned about the debate on Stansted. As I understand it, there is an extension for an hour and a half, but many hon. Members had understood that there would be a vote at about 9.30 pm so that there would be a reasonable distribution of time between the two debates. We were led to believe that there would be some sympathy from the Chair for a closure at about 9.30. I press the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to reply to this debate and not to the earlier debates.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I hardly need any advice from the hon. Gentleman about delaying this matter. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley made a complaint, to which I have responded. I am entitled to quote the fact that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said this:

She therefore came to me .… I advised her to quit the Committee. I said to her, 'Go down in history, Ann, and be bloody well fined.—[Official Report, 12 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 1040].

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) would care to tell us who the hon. Member for Hamilton is.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I beg pardon. I am speaking about the hon. Member for Fife, Central. His remarks in Hansard make it clear that the complaints made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley about this procedure were bogus. If she were unable to form a judgment on the Bill, it was because she accepted his advice to remove herself from proper consideration of the promoters' case, or the petitioners' case.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What does this have to do with the carry-over motion?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Lady—

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: No. I am responding, as I must, to Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady's earlier complaint was that she had been unable to form a judgment and that the motion should not be carried over because she had had inadequate time in which to consider the issues. I was replying to that point and I now move to the next one.

Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman has obviously missed the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has a sense of humour; the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has not.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is with reluctance that I raise this matter. I am not one of those who usually raise points of order. The proceedings started with a point of order suggesting that there might have been a breach of privilege in a letter written by George Blackhall, the managing director of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, in which he talked about delay tactics by a small coterie of Labour Members. I am delighted about that. I have deposited a copy of the letter with the Clerks' Department. I believe that the debate is ending in farce. You, Mr. Speaker, ruled very carefully and precisely, as you usually do, and asked the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to be brief and to the point. His remarks are neither brief nor to the point. Therefore, I should like to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: I have said three or four times that I am not prepared to accept that motion.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The second point made by way of objection to the carry-over motion is that there had been a change in the circumstances of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company as a result of the purchase of some shares in it by P and O. I have procured from the promoters a letter that makes it clear that they remain confident of their predictions about the tonnage that will need to be handled in Felixstowe and the absolute necessity to provide the new facilities which the Bill will allow. Therefore, the argument that the carry-over motion be denied because there has been a change in those circumstances is bogus.
Since the managing director's letter was quoted widely in support of that view, it is right that the House should be aware of what the managing director told me. In his letter of 22 October he stated:
Some weeks ago, in the light of difficult trading conditions, I sent a letter to all of our 1,900 employees explaining the circumstances and emphasising the need for economies … Although the letter was a private communication and declared copyright, the Member for Ipswich who has vigorously and consistently opposed our Bill obtained a copy.
That letter was mentioned in the debate on the carry-over motion an hour or so ago. The managing director stated:
Distorting its intention he"——
the hon. Member for Ipswich—
publicly proclaimed it confirmed his long held contention that there was excess port capacity in the United Kingdom and as Felixstowe could not make use of its facilities extant he was even more determined in his opposition to the Bill".
The managing director concluded:
Despite present and temporary shortfalls from our target figures — our confident predictions indicate by 1989 we shall need to expand our container handling capacity to meet increased demands.
There are figures to support that. The second objection to the carry-over motion falls to the ground.
Turning to the third objection, I quote the words of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He said that in East Anglia there was a "gale" of opposition to the Bill. I refute that view. There is a gale of support for this carry-over motion so that the House may arrive at a conclusion on the Bill in due course.
Those who favour the expansion of this port include East Anglia's industrial, commercial and farming community. They include the regional organisations of the CBI and the Institute of Directors, all of the chambers of commerce, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the East Anglian branches of the Transport and General Workers Union unanimously. They also include all the trade unions that are represented in the port of Felixstowe. Therefore, the objection put by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, that the carry-over motion be denied because there is a gale of opposition to it, falls to the ground. There is no such thing.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend have any light to throw on the fact that there was some original opposition to the Bill by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), who on Second Reading spoke for half an hour, but so far today, for some reason which is obscure to the House, has not opened his mouth?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: That is a matter for the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch).
Let me deal now with the point made about the environmental problems. Several petitions were directed against the Bill on environmental grounds, but it is important to recognise what has happened. Suffolk county council at first objected. It then reached agreement with the promoters on a planning package, including everything from landscaping to noise, building control and nature conservation. Consequently, the Suffolk county council has agreed with the promoters that the carry-over motion is required and should be passed. Similarly, the Ipswich port authority was originally an objector but it reached agreement with the promoters on the navigational priorities and systems.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch also claimed that the Royal Yachting Association was

opposed to the Bill. I have never identified him with the RYA, but I have to say that the RYA has reached agreement with the promoters. It wishes the Bill to proceed, and it would dissent completely from the manner in which the hon. Gentleman sought to pray the RYA in aid against the motion.
The local district council, the Suffolk Coastal council, was originally a petitioner, and would have originally opposed the carry-over motion, for it did not want the Bill to be passed. It has reached agreement on a 200-acre nature reserve and now I am confident that it would wish the carry-over motion to proceed.
I could go on. A whole range of petitions have been considered. In most cases there has been agreement between the promoters and the petitioners, and that is precisely what the private Bill procedure is intended to achieve.
The central issue in the debate tonight is whether the House of Commons should enable the next Session of Parliament to arrive at a decision. None of us can predict what that decision may be, but it is right that a Bill that has had an overwhelming vote on Second Reading, that has received a series of large majorities on the Floor of the House, and that has the clear support of a Committee of our fellow Members which considered it for 26 days should receive the mature consideration of the House.
What is proposed tonight is that a carry-over motion be denied so that the Bill is not determined on its merits and the House is not given an opportunity to judge and vote and determine in the national interest; it is simply proposed tonight that the whole matter shall dribble away in all the wrecking amendments and tactics that Labour Members have thrown against it. The carry-over motion has a long-standing tradition of support in the House. Four carry-over motions were carried yesterday without dissent. About 27 carry-over motions have been carried within the term of this Parliament. This carry-over motion is also entitled to be carried.

Mr. Ken Weetch: As I was frequently mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), I must at this late stage reply to some of the main points that have been raised. I strongly resent the fact that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has accused some of my hon. Friends and myself of being a coterie responsible for the promotion of delaying tactics. I resent that because I have a strong constituency interest in this Bill. As everyone who has heard me speak on this matter knows, I have opposed the Bill from start to finish on grounds of principle, and I shall continue to do so.
In reply to a point that has been made frequently. I must say that I do not represent anyone at all in my opposition to the Bill. I received a letter this morning from the East Anglian branch of Friends of the Earth, thanking me for my opposition. It states:
If this development goes ahead it seems to us that many `safe' sites will be considerably 'less safe' and so we believe every effort must be made to save the area if conservation at a national level is to have any meaning at all.
That is a firm letter of support from Friends of the Earth in East Anglia. But more to the point is a letter from another environmental group saying that I should stand firm
in the face of some hostile attacks from the few who are set to make huge financial gains.
That has been the important issue in this debate.
I oppose the Bill being carried over. Moreover, it should not be discussed again in the next Session of Parliament without the promoters, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, having to go right back to the beginning to explain themselves again in the light of the new points that have emerged not only in these debates but outside the House.
The only sound thing that has gone into the Bill so far is the new clause on environmental control, which was carried a little while ago on Report as part of the first group of amendments. It is self-evident that there is still much to be said on Report, especially as clause 4 starts in a piecemeal and hole-in-the-corner way to dismantle the national dock labour scheme. If the Government wish to do anything about that scheme, they should have the honesty to put it formally to the House and should not act in a hole-in-the-corner way.
My opposition to the Bill is not party political. From time to time I have to report to my general management committee on what I am doing about the Bill. It constantly asks why I so often receive support from card-carrying Conservatives in the constituency. Political opinion in that part of East Anglia is very divided.
I do not adopt a political stance. My interest in the Bill stems from the fact that it fundamentally affects my constituency. When the whole thing first began, I saw the work force in the port of Ipswich. I held an emergency meeting with it as soon as the Bill's shape had become known. Those people expressed their fears for the longterm future of their jobs, and they have been behind me from the beginning.
Whatever else the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company is, it is not daft; on the other hand, it cannot always be right. In the local press and elsewhere it has said that I must feel some malevolence towards the whole issue, as I disagree with the Bill. But I feel no such malevolence; this is a constituency issue from start to finish. I have already expressed grave concern about the long-term future of the port of Ipswich.
One fear has not been quelled by the arguments adduced; that is, that a free-for-all in port development would disrupt the port framework of East Anglia. We have already had one example. Nearly 100 jobs have been lost at Harwich. It was nothing to do with my constituency, so I did not become involved, but the warning was writ large. When Freightliner transferred its operations from Parkeston Quay to Felixstowe, there was a sharp lesson to be drawn about what would happen to jobs in Ipswich if excess port capacity was developed in East Anglia.
The extra capacity proposed is not needed in any shape or form. Two things will result from it. First, there will be a cut-throat war in an attempt to attract deep-sea trade from elsewhere, which will affect many other deep-sea ports in Britain. Secondly, and even more importantly, if there is any commercial shortfall in trade, there will be an immediate push for short-sea container trade and disruption throughout East Anglia, with Ipswich in the front line.
In opposing the carry-over motion, I should point out that no one is threatening one job in Felixstowe, but that there is a real threat to jobs elsewhere. We have had recent evidence from the company concerning the need for economy. When the memorandum from the managing

director of the company, Mr. Blackhall, came round, it was marked "copyright" in order, I understand, to prevent me from quoting at length from it in the local press—

Sir Anthony Grant: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put—

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Boyes: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on a number of occasions, Opposition Members proposed the closure. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) rose to speak, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke for 21 minutes and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) spoke for 20 minutes. My hon. Friend spoke for only 10 minutes and then you accepted the closure motion. Some of the points made by Conservative Members were well wide of the motion and it is important that they are answered. I think that it is a little unfair — if I might use that word — for you to accept the closure at this time after turning down our application. Conservative Members were well wide of the mark and you had to remind them to get to the point.

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that this debate would normally run for three hours. When the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) rose, I understood that he was the last hon. Member who wished to speak. As it happens, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) rose, as was his right, to speak again. Then the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) rose. It is normal for the Chair to accept the closure at one minute to ten o'clock, and that is what I did.

The House having divided: Ayes 174, Noes 39.

Division No. 299]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Favell, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ancram, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashdown, Paddy
Forth, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fry, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Galley, Roy


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Best, Keith
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Browne, John
Grist, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Ground, Patrick


Budgen, Nick
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, J.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Hickmet, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hirst, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Holt, Richard


Dover, Den
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Durant, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Emery, Sir Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Kennedy, Charles


Fallon, Michael
Kershaw, Sir Anthony






Key, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Kirkwood, Archy
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lester, Jim
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Nicholas
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spencer, Derek


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Major, John
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Marlow, Antony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Terlezki, Stefan


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wainwright, R.


Norris, Steven
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Onslow, Cranley
Walden, George


Osborn, Sir John
Watson, John


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Whitfield, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Pollock, Alexander
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Wood, Timothy


Powell, William (Corby)



Powley, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Sir Eldon Griffiths and


Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. Tim Yeo.


NOES


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
John, Brynmor


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lamond, James


Boyes, Roland
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Loyden, Edward


Caborn, Richard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Maxton, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Parry, Robert


Dalyell, Tarn
Sedgemore, Brian


Dewar, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Donald
Snape, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Soley, Clive


Duffy, A. E. P.
Stott, Roger


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Weetch, Ken


Godman, Dr Norman



Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Tony Lloyd and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Peter Pike.


Janner, Hon Greville

Question aaccordingly agreed to.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 38.

Division No. 300]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Alexander, Richard
Lester, Jim


Ancram, Michael
Lightbown, David


Ashdown, Paddy
Lilley, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Lyell, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Batiste, Spencer
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Bellingham, Henry
Maclean, David John


Best, Keith
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
McQuarrie, Albert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Madel, David


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Major, John


Browne, John
Malone, Gerald


Buck, Sir Antony
Marland, Paul


Budgen, Nick
Marlow, Antony


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maude, Hon Francis


Carttiss, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cash, William
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Merchant, Piers


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Conway, Derek
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Cope, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Dorrell, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Nicholls, Patrick


Dover, Den
Norris, Steven


Durant, Tony
Onslow, Cranley


Dykes, Hugh
Osborn, Sir John


Emery, Sir Peter
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Fallon, Michael
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Pollock, Alexander


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Portillo, Michael


Forth, Eric
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Franks, Cecil
Powell, William (Corby)


Gale, Roger
Powley, John


Galley, Roy
Proctor, K. Harvey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Raffan, Keith


Goodhart. Sir Philip
Rathbone, Tim


Gow. Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gower. Sir Raymond
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Grant. Sir Anthony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Grist, Ian
Ryder, Richard


Ground, Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Shersby, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Silvester, Fred


Hayes, J.
Sims, Roger


Hayward, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Speller, Tony


Hickmet, Richard
Spencer, Derek


Hirst, Michael
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Stern, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Terlezki, Stefan


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Key, Robert
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Thurnham, Peter


Lang, Ian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Tracey, Richard






van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wiggin, Jerry


Waddington, David
Wilkinson, John


Wainwright, R.
Wolfson, Mark


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary



Watson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Sir Eldon Griffiths and


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.


Whitfield, John



NOES


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
John, Brynmor


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lamond, James


Boyes, Roland
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Loyden, Edward


Caborn, Richard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Maxton, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Parry, Robert


Dalyell, Tarn
Sedgemore, Brian


Dewar, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Donald
Snape, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Soley, Clive


Duffy, A. E. P.
Stott, Roger


Godman, Dr Norman
Weetch, Ken


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Tony Lloyd and


Janner, Hon Greville
Mr. Peter Pike.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceeding thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session

of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table with the New Clause as added on Consideration of the Bill as amended.

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the adjourned Debate on the Question proposed on 21st October relating to the British Railways (Stansted) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Malone.]

British Railways (Stansted) Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 October].

That the Promoters of the British Railways (Stansted) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think tit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I hope that the House will support the direction by the Chairman of Ways and Means about a carry-over motion on the British Railways (Stansted) Bill. I should remind hon. Members that the direction provides for the promoters of the Bill to have leave to stipend the proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament.
The Bill has had full consideration and was originally debated on 24 February. That debate was adjourned and resumed on 3 June when the Bill was given a Second Reading. It was referred to a Select Committee which sat for three days hearing evidence and it was reported and the preamble approved on 10 July. It now awaits its consideration.
As hon. Members will know, the Bill provides powers for British Rail to anticipate the development of the Stansted airport terminal and to make arrangements to ensure that a rail link is available when that development takes place in 1990. Much of the discussion about the Bill dealt not with the rail link itself but with the juxtaposition of the Stansted proposal and the proposal for Manchester.
In 1984, I spoke on the Second Reading of the British Railways Bill by which powers were given to British Rail to provide the rail link. There has been a great deal of discussion on this matter and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed strong feelings. It is perhaps in everybody's recollection that a meeting took place on Friday 24 October between the British Railways Board, the Manchester passenger transport authority and representatives of Manchester International Airport plc to see whether a way out of this difficulty could be found. I am happy to be able to tell the House that an agreement has been signed which appears to break the deadlock and that there is every chance of real progress.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that British Rail has now told its investment board that there is a commitment by British Rail to put up its part of the money?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Unfortunately, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question. This is essentially a planning Bill, and for that reason I am unable to give him the answer that he seeks. I have no doubt that British Rail will take note of the hon. Gentleman's point, and of course the Minister responsible is also in the House. In the letter of 27 October, it is made clear that the agreement that was discussed last Friday is now in being. I hope that it takes account of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Peter Pike: The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) mentioned the relationship of the Manchester rail link to the Stansted rail link. If the carry-over motion is approved, hon. Members will expect by the time of the Third Reading in the next Session to see a financial commitment by the British Railways Board and positive progress on the Manchester rail link. Will we get that commitment?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Clearly I should like to be able to say yes to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and I am sure that British Rail would like to give the same answer. However, we have to see how this agreement works. As I have said, the first meeting was held last Friday and it seems that all sides are satisfied with the progress. I am sure that the board will take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.
After a somewhat difficult time, we are now making progress on all fronts. I hope that the House will therefore pass the carry-over motion.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The House is aware, from earlier debates, of my interest in this legislation. I have opposed it on the very strong grounds that a Stansted airport rail link should not he sanctioned in advance of a firm agreement to proceed with a Manchester airport rail link. At last we have had some good news about the Manchester rail link, and I pay tribute tonight to hon. Members on both sides of the House who worked long and hard to make possible the agreement that was reached in Manchester last Friday between British Rail, the passenger transport authority, the passenger transport executive and Manchester Airport plc. It has the makings of a famous victory, and it is good news not just for Greater Manchester but for the northwest as a whole.
With many of my hon. Friends, I argued in earlier debates that it was palpably wrong to sanction new investment at Stansted in the south-east before meeting the prior claims of Manchester, in a region so very badly stricken by unemployment as the north-west. What we need to hear tonight is a positive response from the Minister to the agreement that was reached last Friday and that he will be meeting the parties at a very early date.
Two matters remain to be agreed and will need to be discussed with the Secretary of State. First, there are the difficulties facing the PTA in providing firm commitments on the future of supportive services from Piccadilly in central Manchester to the airport, notwithstanding the PTE's view that the rail link will strengthen the viability


of existing services on the Styal line. Secondly, there are British Rail's similar difficulties in giving commitments to the PTA on its services outside the PTA area.
It will also be necessary for the parties to discuss with the Secretary of State the need to exploit external funding opportunities— for example, from EEC grants. I hope that tonight the Minister will indicate his right hon. Friend's readiness to hold an early meeting with the parties and that we shall now be given a pledge of his practical support for our determination to see the opening of the Manchester rail link within the time scale envisaged in Manchester last Friday.
The Secretary of State has not so far met the parties to last Friday's agreement. It was his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who met them, together with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and myself, at the Department of Transport in May of this year. A further meeting at the Department is thus now both very important and urgent.
It is on the assumption, based on his correspondence with me and the oral reply that I had from him in the House last week, of a positive response from the Secretary of State that I hope not to have to oppose the motion tonight. I know that British Rail understands my grounds for opposing the legislation so far, and I trust that it will now no longer be necessary to oppose it further.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I do not intend to oppose the carry-over motion, for two reasons. First, the agreement is now in being. I understand that, although the agreement is not yet before the investment committee of British Rail, it is likely to come before it in the next few weeks. Therefore, we should be able to take further action against the British Railways (Stansted) Bill in time, if that matter is not pursued with the vigour that we all demand. Until we see the details and the whites of their eyes, we are quite happy to support the motion.
Secondly, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was not quite right. The present Secretary of State also took part in discussions at Manchester airport on this matter more recently than the meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Ministers have been involved to a considerable extent, and they have given us a great deal of support. In the remaining issues that concern them—many do not, but instead concern BR and the local authority—I hope and believe that we can rely on my hon. Friend to give the Department's full support for seeing that the outstanding matters are settled.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The motion is strictly procedural, and I shall speak simply to advise the House of the Government's view.
We made it clear in the airports policy White Paper that we would be pleased to approve a rail link to Stansted airport if there was a commercial case. I reaffirmed that on Second Reading. British Rail has shown that there is a commercial case, and we have given approval. British Rail now needs powers to build the link so that it will be

ready by 1991, when the new terminal at Stansted is due to come into operation. The Government therefore support the motion.
It is correct to say that, in May, the parties to the Manchester airport link met my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, and me and were asked to reassess the financial contribution that they were prepared to make and to come forward with proposals. I have been very pleased to learn that the parties concerned with the proposed rail link have recently made considerable progress on a possible cost-sharing arrangement. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have full details of the proposals, we will examine them urgently and be pleased to discuss them. We will, of course, have to examine the details carefully in the light of the normal criteria for public expenditure control. I cannot say more until we have the proposals in front of us. The House will note this indication of BR's good intentions, and I hope that that will be welcomed and not dismissed with ingratitude tonight.
If the motion is carried, the House will have further opportunities to consider the arguments for and against the Bill on the basis of the Select Committee on Transport's recommendations. I therefore urge the House to allow the Bill to be carried over.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There were rumours, at least on this side of the House, that the Minister would make this statement with enthusiasm. We fail to see much enthusiasm in this. Could he not show a little enthusiasm and draw attention to the considerable advantages not just to the Greater Manchester area or the north-west, but to the whole of the country, of having one of our most important international airports linked to the national rail network?

Mr. Mitchell: I have frequently expressed my support for matters that are of concern to Manchester and its Members of Parliament. It would be imprudent of me to give a firm blessing to something about which I do not have the details and when I have not yet received a formal application from the parties. They will come back to the Secretary of State and, when they do, we will listen carefully to what they say. I hope that it will be found that we can take the proposals forward.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister asked us to accept with good grace what has been achieved, but it is difficult for us to know whether there is similar good grace in the Government, especially when the hon. Gentleman uses a phrase such as "subject to the constraints on public spending". He must be aware that such a phrase sends a chill down the spines of Opposition Members. Would he like to spell out the circumstances in which that would cause a problem?

Mr. Mitchell: It is a straightforward matter, and the hon. Member need not get excited about it. BR has a normal procedure for investment appraisal, which comes to Ministers as part of their assessment of public expenditure control, to which the hon. Gentleman took exception. That is a standard part of the procedure and we cannot give detailed examination of this proposal until it is in front of us.
The parties will be welcome to come back to the Secretary of State, as suggested by his predecessor. When


they do so, they will be warmly welcomed, with whatever proposals they have for further examination. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to be carried over in the usual way and to agree the motion before us, especially in the light of the fair wind which I have described in regard to the Manchester proposal.

Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), as this is the third occasion on which I heard him speak on the motion. If the motion is carried tonight, we will have something to look forward to after the Queen's Speech because, presumably, we shall hear a fourth speech from the hon. Gentleman.
Congratulations are due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), to my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester). I do not believe that the motion would be accepted tonight, as I hope that it will, without their efforts on behalf of Manchester airport.
Without introducing a controversial note into the proceedings, I will fire a warning shot across the Minister's bows—if such a metaphor is appropriate in the railway context. The Minister said that we must not be guilty of ingratitude, but he has not given us anything yet. There is an implicit promise in what he has said hut, as they used to say in the Whips Office, "There is no cough."

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that what is before the House is a British Railways Bill and it was to British Railways that I suggested that the gratitude might be appropriate.

Mr. Snape: It is not for me to presume gratitude to British Rail on behalf of my hon. Friends.
It is significant that, although it looks as though we shall get the go-ahead — depending on the financial contribution or whatever the term is in the gobbledegook that is written for the Minister—for the railway line to Ringway airport, we are not exactly comparing like with like when we compare Manchester with Stansted.
I appreciate that this motion concerns Stansted but, without sounding too ungracious or giving way to the ingratitude which the Minister suggested may be implicit in my remarks, it is fair to say that, solely because of the opposition of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Withington, Manchester will get a railway line.
It will not he built on the same basis as that at Stansted because there will be a significant cost to the passenger transport executive in Manchester. No doubt the Minister will say that the final arrangements have not arrived on his desk. There will be a 50p supplement to every passenger using the line but the line at Stansted, which is the subject of the motion, a virtual greenfield site, is built courtesy of the taxpayer. As the Minister continually reminds us, the taxp ayer funds British Rail to a large extent.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is a commercial proposition and not one funded by the taxpayer.

Mr. Snape: The Minister may know that, but I do not. I am sure that there is a good bit of juggling and financial sleight of hand between the Department and British Rail to justify this.
The greenfield site at Stansted is an exaggeration but it is hardly the busiest airport in the United Kingdom. Yet proposals have been before the House for some considerable time to extend the airport.
I do not know how good a financial wizard the Minister is. Not too many miles from here is the biggest international airport in the world, and so far neither his wizardry nor British Rail's financial acumen has managed to prove a case for building a main line railway into Heathrow. If the Minister uses the same calculations as he uses to justify the financial case for a railway into Stansted, I have no doubt that there will not just be a two-track or a four-track railway into Heathrow, but that it will be like Clapham junction all the way from a major London terminus. If the Minister wishes to blind us with science on the financial aspects of the proposals, he should put some figures before us.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have listened to these Front Bench exchanges with some interest. There have been some interesting metaphors. The Minister talked about fair winds and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) followed that with threats of shots across the bows. May I offer a similar threat in connection with the Scottish airports? I sincerely hope that Prestwick, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen will be treated with similar sympathy when their infrastructural needs and expectations come up for discussion.

Mr. Snape: If I followed my hon. Friend down that flight path, you might call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The best advice that I can give my hon. Friend, judging from our experience during the past year or so, is that if he is worried about the future of the Scottish airports, he should block a few Bills in the House. Who knows what financial sleight of hand the Minister would use to justify expenditure north of the border?
We give the measure a qualified welcome. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will return to the matter in due course, and I hope that once we have heard yet another eloquent speech from the hon. Member for New Forest, we can complete the railway line into Stansted, one into Manchester and, if there is any financial sense behind those proposals, eventually a surface railway into Heathrow.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I begin to get the impression that I am an uninvited guest at my own birthday party.
I should make it clear that I am in favour of the motion. Although I have objected to the Bill, those objections have been removed and my feelings on the matter are reflected by the majority of opinion in my constituency. The decision having been taken on the development of Stansted airport, it is only sensible that the airport is planned and designed to the highest possible standards. There will be no excuse for failing in those respects_ It is sensible to build in a rail link at the beginning, because it will provide the most effective transition from rail to aircraft at almost any airport in the United Kingdom. On balance, it will probably be better environmentally if people can reach the airport efficiently by rail rather than by road.
One of my principal reservations was that the rail service might be unable to bear the added strain of extra


trains. I have no wish for the regular passengers in my constituency to be inconvenienced further, because they have had a bad time on that line for many years. British Rail has gone a long way towards satisfying me that the position will be improved, and I am persuaded that more investment in that railway line is the key to better services. Although I have not finished my discussions with British Rail about further improvements in the overall service, it must be right to establish the rail link into Stansted without further significant delay.
I should add, partly because of my former connections with the north-west, that I am delighted that there has been progress in the provision of a rail link for Manchester airport. I hope that the discussions will be completed without too much delay and that my hon. Friend the Minister will take a generous and broadly supportive attitude towards it. I hope that there will not be too much emphasis on the nitty gritty and the small print. The important principle of balance between the north and the south must be satisfied. The Government will be thankful if the extra capacity that Manchester represents can be used to the full. There have already been warnings that the south-eastern airports system may be under strain.
Many of us believe that there has been a bias towards the south-east, and if that can be relieved by the greater exploitation of Manchester we would welcome that as being in the national interest. I hope that this matter can go ahead, that the House will agree that we can come back to this in the next Session, and that the Bill is not lost, so that we can tie up the matter satisfactorily. I hope that the Government will regard it as a happy situation that they have the approval of those concerned with the Stansted end of things and are now close to getting the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House representing the north-west area, and that they will think that that is a job well done and be thankful.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I wish to put on record my support for the Stansted link. I agree with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) that this is right, and it is common sense to put in that public rail link now. I hope that the Bill will go through with alacrity in the next Session.
I congratulate those hon. Members representing the Manchester area, who have pulled off a coup. I hope that the negotiations for getting the rail link into Manchester, which I support, will quickly be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that we must put in a public rail link to Heathrow as soon as possible. It will be complicated, but there is no point in trying to deal with the traffic problems of London, with all the difficulties in getting out to, and back from, Heathrow, if we are not serious about getting a major public rail link into Heathrow. I am sure that the Minister has taken that on board. I realise that that will be extremely expensive, and there will be problems, such as where it is brought into, which are being reviewed. However, it would make a great deal of sense if this were pulled off as well.
When Heathrow was first developed, such a rail link was planned, but it has never been developed, although we built an airport at Gatwick that happened to be a great

success. I never thought that the Stansted link should have been held back because of Manchester, but hon. Members representing that area have managed to pull off a deal. All power to their elbow.

Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) has fought hard to protect the interests of his constituents, and those of us who have difficulties with proposed new transport systems will have a great deal of sympathy with him, and hope that he will get the safeguards that he requires. It is interesting that he has been big enough to support this proposal wholeheartedly.
The decision on Stansted airport was taken because many hon. Members desired to create jobs in the United Kingdom and not in Schiphol. That being so, it is unthinkable that we should even contemplate building a modern airport without the facility of a rail link to it. I am delighted to hear that progress has been made on the Manchester link, and I wish that well. It would clearly be foolish not to take steps now to provide the necessary link for a future expanded airport at Stansted. Those of us who have occasion to use both Heathrow and Gatwick airports know the considerable difference between trying to get to the one and trying to get to the other.
I hope that if I have the privilege to introduce a Bill to promote a rail link with the new Kent international airport, that will also have a fair wind, and I hope that this Bill will have the carry-over right.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister asked us to be gracious in our acceptance, but we are still in the position that we should almost bite his hand off, if it were there to bite. His remarks were less than fulsome, although we can read between the lines. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) that we shall be returning to this should matters not work out, although everybody hopes that matters will progress smoothly.
The Minister may find himself in difficulty in committing himself wholeheartedly to what I am about to say. It seems logical to those of us from Manchester that, if the Manchester rail link is approved, there should be no barrier to the Department of Transport wholeheartedly and fulsomely backing an application to the European Community for help under section 56. Is the Minister prepared to comment?

Mr. David Mitchell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lloyd: Well, we shall return to that point. This is an important matter. It is unusual for a Minister, especially under this Government, not to take the opportunity to say that he is prepared to spend someone else's money. There will be no cost to the Exchequer because all the domestic money will be spent by either British Rail or local Manchester bodies.
I thank the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) because, as a lapsed northerner, he gave some assistance. That may be the only kind comment I make about him. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who could not be present because of another engagement, gave great assistance also. It is recognised that, if properly built and constructed as part of an adequate rail system, a rail link into Manchester will


benefit not just the Manchester area. We are talking not about a commuter line but about one that shows acceptance of the fact that Manchester is a national airport and opens it up to national traffic. Your role, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should not go unrecognised, but perhaps I should not say more on that.
We hope that there is good will on all sides so that the link goes ahead. We look forward to seeing what happens in the next few weeks and to ensuring that the north-west has an airport fitting to the region. The area is certainly in need of the link.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I thank the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for their support. I assure hon. Members from the north-west, including my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), that the board recognises that it is important that a proper decision is made before Third Reading. We want to make progress. I assure hon. Members also that account will be taken of their message and that there will be no undue delay. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his remarks and I hope that the House will approve the motion for the carry-over.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (Stansted) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date he paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

British Railways Board (Grant)

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That the draft British Railways Board (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.
As the House knows, the financial support arrangements for British Rail's passenger services were provided by Parliament in the Railways Act 1974. This Act made the Secretary of State responsible for deciding what level of passenger service the board should provide beyond what is commercially viable. The Act also made the Secretary of State responsible for paying the board grant to meet the costs of these non-commercial services which could not be covered from the railways' own income. This is known as the public service obligation, or PSO. grant.
The same Act applied a statutory limit to the cumulative amount of grant which the Secretary of State could pay to British Rail without seeking parliamentary approval. The limit was originally set, in 1974, at £900 million, extendable to a total of £1·5 billion by Order in Council, subject to the approval of the House. This total limit has twice been changed, by the Transport Act 19'78 and by the Transport (Finance) Act 1982. The present restriction limits payments of grant for periods after the end of 1978 to £6 billion, extendable by Order in Council to £10 billion, again subject to the approval of the House.
The position by the end of this month will be that, since the end of 1978, cumulative payments of public service obligation grant to British Rail will have reached £5·768 billion. To meet the Government's firm commitment to support British Rail's non-commercial railway services, payments will need, some time early in 1987, to exceed the limit of £6,000 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on 11 July that the current estimate presented to the House last March makes provision for grant payments £100 million in excess of the present limit. There can be no question of grant expenditure in excess of the limit, and he said then that an order would be laid for the approval of the House to increase the statutory ceiling. This is the necessary order.
The order provides, as was done in previous orders in 1977 and 1981, for the full increase allowed by statute. It is sensible to provide sufficient finance to cover the lifetime of the new objectives set for the chairman by my right hon. Friend. Here is firm financial evidence of the Government's commitment to these socially necessary services. There is a clear message for British Rail and its customers. The message of this order and of the objectives which we set the board last week is that the support and commitment of the Government to the railway continues, that the excellent record of the board and its staff over the past three years will be built on and that our established policies for the railways are succeeding. The next three years will see further progress towards higher quality and greater cost-effectiveness.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the Minister in a position to comment on recent press speculation, particularly in the Scottish newspapers, about the threatened diminution in the Euston to Glasgow central service and the expansion of the Waverley, Edinburgh to Kings Cross service? Can he assure the


House that the Euston to Glasgow service will not suffer the kind of diminution mentioned in some of the press reports?

Mr. Mitchell: Decisions on the matching of supply and demand with services on the alternate routes to Scotland is entirely a matter for British Rail's management and not for me. The hon. Gentleman will know, and I am sure will accept, that during the past three years one has seen, in Scotland, in the development of ScotRail's policies, considerable signs of improvement, with the rehabilitation and redecoration of the railway stations throughout the network, the opening of the Bathgate line to passenger transport, the first major renewal of a passenger service and a whole series of other improvements. Therefore, I hope he will feel that this is a good illustration of the success that has been achieved during the past three years and will recognise that the objectives that have been set by my right hon. Friend extrapolate those same objectives over the next three years.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister. As always, he is very graceful in giving way. I accept what he says about the improvements brought about in, say, Waverley station, Edinburgh, Glasgow central station, and Queen street station, Glasgow. I may say, en passant, that the stations in my constituency leave a lot to be desired. But putting that to one side, I was not asking a question about alternate services. That was the phrase the Minister used. The Glasgow central to Euston service can in no way be seen as an alternate or an alternative service to the Waverley, Edinburgh to Kings Cross service. Both are important in their own right. All that I am seeking, as a west of Scotland Member of Parliament, is that there will be no diminution in the quality and quantity of the service between Euston and Glasgow central.

Mr. Mitchell: I recognise that the services up the east coast main line to Edinburgh serve a different market from that served by the west coast mainline services to Glasgow from Euston, but the decisions about the services to be provided by Inter-City are commercial decisions for the management of the Inter-City sector of BR.
Our objectives maintain the policy established by the previous Labour Government that Inter-City should operate as a commercial business. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) would disagree with that. Indeed, the Labour Government's 1977 White Paper entitled "Transport Policy" said:
The Government considers that within their general business, British Railways' Inter-City services should pay their way.
That means that the decision on how best to cater for their passengers and to pay their way rests with them.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will my hon. Friend briefly define what the Government mean by socially necessary services?

Mr. Mitchell: That does not really apply in this case. I was referring to the matching of supply and demand. Taking Inter-City out of grant, which was announced in 1984, is the natural realisation of the goal set by the Labour Government in their transport policy paper. We fully recognise the difficulties that this has presented. Our

recent objectives reflect the problems by allowing the Board greater commercial freedom within its objectives for the non-grant-aided railway.
We have set a single target for all the businesses concerned rather than individual targets. That target, at 2·7 per cent., is of course less demanding than the 5 per cent. target to which the Inter-City business was previously working. However, I stress that our objectives also reflect the remarkable achievement of the sector in turning round its finances and the further improvements already planned.
I am tired of having the railways knocked by the Opposition. Here again we have an achievement for which the board deserves considerable credit. The sums of money required to support the railways are large, and the statutory limits reflect that. The grant settlement for this year is £712 million. That is a massive commitment by any standards, and it is right that the Government should ensure that the services that the grant buys are as cost-effective and efficient as possible. The House would properly be critical if we did not do that.
In setting objectives for the railway over the next three years we have also taken account of the clear wishes of the travelling public, which we and the board share, to see quality standards improving on the railways. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear to the House on 22 October, the grant savings that we are asking for on Network SouthEast and the provincial network are a modest 8 per cent. of their present grant of £605 million over three years. It takes account of the quality of service standards that we want the board to meet, and the board's estimate of expenditure necessary to meet those standards.
Our objective of continuing improvements in cost-effectiveness is consistent with our requirement of improved quality. Indeed, greater efficiency means more money for improvements in quality. Many parts of the railway network already enjoy excellent services. The recent sham indignation of Opposition Members conveniently ignored the improvements which are recognised by all who regularly travel round the country on the railways.

Mr. Peter Snape: What about Ministers' cars?

Mr. Mitchell: The railways have carried out nearly £3,000 million of investment since this Government came to power. This new investment has opened up higher standards of comfort and speed to large parts of the network which previously suffered from old, uncomfortable rolling stock which was also expensive to operate and unreliable.
In response to the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I should say that 1 travel by train whenever that can be conveniently and properly done. Many rural branch lines and London commuter services now enjoy modern, clean and comfortable Sprinters, Pacers or electric multiple units. Stations are being refurbished, from London termini to small rural and commuter halts.
New passenger information systems are an increasingly visible sign of the hard work that the railways are putting into customer care. Much more is coming through new rolling stock for Waterloo to Bournemouth and Weymouth, a completely new service, with new stock, linking north and south London via Kings Cross, the


Snow Hill tunnel and Blackfriars. I hope to see a new service to Stansted. More new Sprinters and Pacers and the new east coast mainline service are in the pipeline. I hope that before long we shall see the certitude of the Channel tunnel. The new state of the art ticket issuing machines are another sign of continuing progress on station modernisation.
The list is long of all the things that are being achieved as a result of the massive increase in investment by British Rail which we have permitted and encouraged.
The message is clear. The Government are not only committed to revenue support for socially necessary services, but they support necessary investment for a modern, efficient railway.
Sometimes I think that the Opposition are so set on pessimism and gloom that they do not want to see, or to recognise, the tremendous achievement by Sir Robert Reid, his board and staff. They persist in running down the railways' achievements, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has done time after time from the Dispatch Box. He may laugh, but I ask him to look at his previous speeches and at the comments by his hon. Friends only last week.
The railways' financial turnround since 1983 has been remarkable. The improvement in cost-effectiveness has not driven away customers or closed services, as some of our prejudiced critics insist on claiming. More people are using the railways and the network is increasingly being modernised. A total of 22 more stations have been opened, fare increases have been relatively modest, offset for many by reduced fare offers and the value of Capitalcard.
The forecasts of massive fare increases and sweeping cuts in services were wrong when they were made in 1983. They have been shown to be wrong by results since then, and they are wrong now. The Opposition owe it to British Rail and the public to cease their unfounded and inaccurate campaign against the railways and their successes, because they are beginning to achieve the improvements that we all seek.

Mr. Peter Snape: If anything illustrates the weakness of delivering a prepared speech it is the Minister's contribution. He accused the Opposition of all sorts of things, yet he opened the debate. He realised the reasons for our mirth and claimed that he was referring to speeches in the past from the Opposition Front Bench about the state of British Rail.
I wish that the unreal world which the Minister described existed. I wish that I could congratulate Ministers on their efforts within British Rail. I fear that I should be straining credulity if I did that, because those of us who travel by train regularly know that when the service is on time it is probably as good as it is anywhere else in the world, but all too often it does not run to time because of factors which are not the responsibility of those who are charged with the day-to-day running of the system.
It is not just critics from the Opposition Benches who use strong words about the system's failings; those who have no political responsibility also use them. Organisations representing passengers, independent transport commentators and editorial writers feel strongly about the decline in our railway system and in its standards of service and comfort. Those who write to The London Standardare not my constituents or those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but many of them are

constituents of the Secretary of State. Are they the carping Left-wing critics to which the Minister referred? In some instances they draw attention to daily failures in punctuality in the part of the railway system that is now called Network SouthEast. Are they Left-wingers who wish only to denigrate the Government's achievements? They are not. The collective voice of disgruntlement about the standards of punctuality and comfort has risen to a new strength over the past few years and would drown the fairly weak paean of praise that the Minister has delivered so carefully from his prepared speech.

Mr. David Mitchell: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman indulging in the knocking, in which he so often engages, of British Rail in its efforts to provide commuter services into London. The punctuality target set by British Rail is 90 per cent. in the Network SouthEast area within five minutes. In the first quarter of this year, the target was met. In the second quarter, it was beaten. I am anxious to encourage British Rail to continue with these improvements. Instead of knocking British Rail, I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in encouraging it and its staff to continue these improvements.

Mr. Snape: I am delighted to congratulate British Rail if the figures are as the Minister said. I do not take too kindly, however, to his view that Opposition Members should never criticise British Rail or the Government who are responsible for providing the financial wherewithal to maintain and improve its services. I do not need any lectures from the hon. Gentleman about the efforts of British Rail's staff to cope with a system that all too often is more than difficult to operate. On many routes at many times of the day it is almost impossible to operate.
Let us examine the Government's record. The publicity that was given to the announcement of the Secretary of State on 29 October was centered largely on the cuts in the public service obligation and the consequences for passengers in the south-east of England. However, the directive that he issued to the chairman of British Rail goes much wider than that. The directive refers to reducing PSO to £550 million at 1986–87 prices from the current £732 million. That reduction is to be achieved by 1989–90, and that does not include the passenger transport executive element of between £60 million and £70 million. The directive refers to a
lower proportion of costs in Network SouthEast to come from grant and higher fares should be charged.
The Secretary of State became as indignant as he ever allows himself to be in the Chamber when he was accused by my hon. Friends and by some Conservative Members of being the cause of increased fares within Network SouthEast. I do not recollect his exact words, but he refuted the charge somewhat indignantly and implied that the reductions in grant could be met by the cliche of the Conservative party, which is "greater efficiency".
It is interesting to turn to the letter which the Secretary of State sent to Sir Robert Reid, the chairman of the British Railways Board, in which he stated:
It is the Board's responsibility to determine fares".
That is the perpetual Government cop-out. In other words, he is saying, "We have reduced the amount of money that is available, but it is your 'responsibility to determine fares'." The right hon. Gentleman continued:
but I want to see a lower proportion of the costs met by the taxpayer.


Perhaps, in the anglicised gobbledegook so loved by the right hon. Gentleman, that has nothing to do with a fare increase. He added:
You should increasingly seek to reflect in your fares structure the cost of provision and improvements in quality of service.
While I did not attend the school at which the Minister was educated, I read those words as meaning that the board is expected to increase fares to meet the requirement to improve the quality of the service. It will have to increase fares anyway, because in the same announcement the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be reducing the amount of cash available.
He went on to deal with
bus substitution to be considered for provincial services when reinvestment in new rolling stock or equipment is required.
That was a clarion call of support for the railways and those who provide equipment for them. He added, I thought remarkably;:
railways should not compete unfairly with buses in the provincial sector.
I am not sure what he meant by that. I do not know whether his Department has briefed him properly, but he should know that, because of the strange way in which we calculate vehicle excise duty, buses are classed as hackney carriages, which means, for example, that a 52-seat coach pays about £15 a year less than a mini for a road fund licence. On the Department's figures, the bus and coach industry fails to meet its true track costs by about £150 million a year. So the Minister should examine carefully who is subsidising whom when he compares buses with trains.
The right hon. Gentleman continued:
Freight, Freightliner, parcels, Travellers Fare and Inter-City services will be expected to earn a rate of return of 2·7 per cent. as a current cost operating profit on net assets when the businesses arc taken together.
I defy anybody to describe that as a businesslike way of approaching the problems of running a national transport system. It means, taken literally, that if Travellers Fare puts up the cost of pork pies—while I congratulate the Minister on the abolition of the railway pork pie, I confess that, while I may be in the minority, I always enjoyed railway pork pies — to such an extent that Travellers Fare makes an enormous profit, then lumping the businesses together, Inter-City can make a whacking great loss because the two taken together will have met the Government's target.
It was significant that when my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the question of the future of the inter-city service on the west coast, he did not receive an assurance from the Minister following a report in The Guardian recently about inter-city services on the west coast main line terminating at Preston. In view of the Minister's lukewarm response to my hon. Friend, that report could be based on fact.
Given the arbitrary and somewhat artificial way in which inter-city services are categorised, it would make economic sense, given the daft way we do our sums, for trains travelling north of Preston and stopping at various intermediate stations to be placed in the "other provincial services" category. In that case, they would be eligible for PSO grant, while the existing inter-city services running on exactly the same lines would be expected to make a profit.

If one were trying to devise a crazy way to run the railways, that is the system one would not only introduce but seek to defend by criticising hon. Members who criticise it.

Dr. Godman: The route between Euston and Glasgow central is much more than a socially necessary route. It is popular with people in the west of Scotland and is capable of expansion in terms of the volume of passengers carried.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and perhaps I should make it plain that my reason for making the comment is that the other provincial services are regarded as socially necessary. Not so the inter-city network, which is expected to make a profit from the arbitrary transference of one service to another. It makes no sense that trains between cities such as Liverpool and Hull should be regarded not as inter-city trains but as other provincial services, while trains between cities such as Manchester and London are regarded as inter-city. The difference between the two escapes me, other than that the former normally have the filthiest and most ancient and clapped-out rolling stock and locomotives that could be provided. The two do, in fact, connect English cities. Yet, by a quite arbitrary line—normally that of profit—one is classed a provincial service and the other is classed as part of an inter-city network.
Although the Minister might bluff and bluster about railway prospects, punctuality, comfort, and so on, the fact is that, taken together, his right hon. Friend's directives represent a further reduction in standards of service throughout the railway industry. What is interesting about the announcement on 21 October about London and south-east services, known as Network SouthEast, is that the portion of public service obligation was scheduled to increase marginally between 1986–87 and 1987–88. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had one eye on a general election being held in one of those years. It was scheduled to increase from £222 million to £224 million — a marginal increase, but an increase nevertheless. The planned reduction in PSO in the Network SouthEast sector was 12 per cent. over three years. Existing levels of PSO are insufficient to allow BR to meet its quality of service objectives. If BR cannot meet the quality of service objectives now, how is it to do so when faced with a further reduction in grant?
Ministers have made much of the fact that British Rail has accommodated a cut of 25 per cent. in PSO over the past three years—that is, between 1983 and the end of the current financial year. However, they fail to point out the impact of the cut on both the quality of service for the rail user and salaries and working conditions of those for whom the Minister of State occasionally sheds crocodile tears—the railway staff.
I shall refer to the 1986 report of the Central Transport Consultative Committee. I hope that the Minister will not blacken the committee with the description "Left-wing critics" or "prejudiced critics"— the sort of description that he normally applies to Opposition Members.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We? Three!

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I thought that he was the Minister responsible for roads. I shall in due course turn to his contributions to the nation's transport efforts.
Taken at random, some of the Central Transport Consultative Committee's comments do not quite fit the rosy picture of an efficient and comfortable railway system that the Minister likes to portray. The committee said:
it is the CTCC's view that any overall fares increase next year above the rate of inflation cannot be justified when related to the present quality of service standards.
It continued:
in some areas overcrowding has reached such intolerable proportions that additional resources should be made available.
It concluded its section on standards by saying:
Passengers are not yet satisfied with the service provided.
I ask the Minister of State whether he accepts that criticism by the Central Transport Consultative Committee, or is it another plot hatched in Moscow or wherever to denigrate devoted Ministers presiding over Europe's best and most efficient railway system? Has the CTCC been nobbled by the wicked Left wingers, or does it have a point? British Rail obviously believes that it has a point, because, far from showing its agreement with transport users consultative committees up and down the country and raising standards in the way those committees have suggested, it has taken umbrage and has denied to those committees many of the statistics that they need to compile the facts on the decline in both standards of service and punctuality. It is sadly typical of the public sector under the Government that, no matter how bad things are, all one needs to do is to beef up the PR budget and chuck a few buckets of red paint about, to try to convince everybody who uses the railway system that the decline in the standard of service is in fact an increase.
How has British Rail managed to live with the reductions in PSO over the past three years? There have been redundancies in the industry, a reduction in standards, more overcrowding and less frequent trains on some lines, but most of the survival plan over the past few years has come about as a result of BR selling off its own assets. Since 1979, BR has sold almost £300 million of assets in an attempt to stay solvent. I know that the Government believe in the economics of the madhouse: if it makes money, one sells it, and if it loses money, one keeps it in the public sector and blames inefficient nationalised industries. But there is a limit to the amount of assets that are available to sell off to the highest bidder to keep the railway system turning over.
The consequences of the Government's attitude, particularly for Network SouthEast, are significant. Network SouthEast's call on PSO this year was about £210 million. As we understand it, BR intends raising fares in Network SouthEast by around 6 per cent. in the new year. That is almost 3 per cent. above the rate of inflation. That suggests a cut in PSO in the Network SouthEast sector of about 10 per cent. None of us who travels by train in the south of England needs reminding that other than the efforts by Mr. Chris Green and his staff—I willingly pay tribute to their efforts, and I am sure that my hon. Friends from north of the border regret Mr. Green's transfer to Network SouthEast because of his efforts in Scotland—the fact is that staffing, station maintenance, quality of service, overcrowding and timekeeping on many lines in that sector are not good enough and regularly are the subject of a barrage of criticism from regular users.
During the most recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission study into London commuter services in 1980, the MMC found that BR had identified five areas

where there were opportunities for real pricing—that is, fare increases above the retail price index. The most important was keeping in step with real income improvements. That is exactly what the Government are arguing now, and exactly the message implicit in the Secretary of State's statement on 21 October, that commuters in the south-east can afford to pay more, arid should do so. That message might be morally right. It would help the debate if at least the Government, for once, had the courage and honesty to say that that is what they are doing, but they try to conceal their real intentions behind a smokescreen of greater efficiency, so-called productivity and further reductions in both service and staff.
Despite the Government's reaction to the MMC report, fares in the Network SouthEast sector have increased by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Again, I hope that the Secretary of State, when he canvasses his commuters on one of Croydon's stations at the next general election, will have the courage to tell them that under his Government fares have increased by that percentage in real terms. Part of the reason is that BR has increased fares significantly above the rate of inflation on lines where substantial investments have taken place— for example, the Bedford-St. Pancras route.
To encompass a cut in PSO of 25 per cent., fares in the south-east sector would have to rise by about 10 per cent. in real terms. In reality, passenger revenue will not be sufficient to meet the shortfall as traffic switches again to the roads, adding to the enormous problems already encountered by commuters who attempt to enter and leave London by road every day. If British Rail cannot make good the cut in PSO through the improved efficiency demanded by the Government — and none of us seriously believes that it can — asset sales or fare increases are the only alternative to line closures.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has some familiarity with the railways. Can he say what sort of percentage improvement in efficiency he would like to see? An organisation of that sort is bound to be able to make some improvement in efficiency. What sort of improvement is it reasonable to expect?

Mr. Snape: As the hon. Gentleman says. I have some acquaintance with the railways. I was still working for the railways on the day in 1974 when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) decided to have a general election. I must confess that there have been times since when I thought I might have to work for the railways again. Efficiency, punctuality, standards of service or anything else cannot be improved by continually reducing the amount of money available. The Secretary of State was slightly lampooned in the newspapers for saying that I would throw money at every problem. As the House heard in an exchange last week, that view does not apply to agriculture.
I hope that the next Labour Government will ensure that Britain's railway system is properly funded. I want to see funds made available to bring about the improvements that the hon. Gentleman's constituents demand in Hampshire. Certainly, the constituents of the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr Moore) continually complain about the service. Unless we have the sort of improvements that I have demanded, the flight of commuters from the railways will continue. 11 one looks


at a graph covering the period from the 1960s during which we had Governments of both parties, one sees that the number of people commuting by rail into London has dropped dramatically. A further flight from the rail network on to London's roads and the roads in the south of England would be disastrous for the environment and for the future of the rail services that at least the Opposition are seeking to defend.
Freightliner, parcels, Travellers' Fare and Inter-City have been grouped together and given a group financial target. The message is that Inter-City remains in desperate trouble and is £100 million in the red. I understand that negotiations are taking place about standards, but in the past the standards set have proved unreachable. Setting such standards is no way in which to get Inter-City out of its desperate trouble, because unattainable standards are demoralising for management and staff.
British Rail set up a special unit to examine ways of meeting the Government's target to eliminate the need for PSO support by 1987–88 and to achieve a 5 per cent. return on assets by 1988–89. I make a plea and hope that it will be received by the Minister in the right spirit. If standards are unrealistic, not only is the Government's overall view damaged, but it is extremely dangerous for morale in the industry. We are continually accused, as the Minister accused us when he opened the debate, of knocking the railway industry.
I defy the Minister of State to deny that since this Government have been in office there have been cuts in the network, reductions in services, an increase in the number of overcrowded trains, a rejection, for financial reasons, by British Rail of profitable freight traffic and a dramatic reduction in the work force. Those remaining in the industry have been forced to work longer hours. One only has to compare the hours worked in the mid-1980s by railwaymen with those that they worked in the mid-1970s. It gives me no pleasure to say that our forecasts and predictions have, regrettably, come true.
Unless there is a dramatic change of heart by the Government, the decline in standards will continue. Such a decline is not in the best interests of the industry. It is certainly not in the best interests of the Government, who will soon have to fight a general election on their transport policies as well as on their other policies. Most important of all, it is not in the best interests of those who depend on the railway industry either to transport their freight or to carry them to and from work every day.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful to have this opportunity to participate in the debate. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and I often travel together on railway journeys, and on many occasions we agree on all matters. However, there is some justification in my hon. Friend the Minister's criticism that he and some of his hon. Friends overdo their criticism of everything and anything that this Government do in connection with the railways. As that criticism so often reflects upon British Rail, he does his constituents, his party and the railways no good by failing from time to time to give credit where credit is due. My hon. Friend the Minister may be slightly surprised to hear me say that. He

probably regards me as one of the more severe critics of the Government's railways policy. But that is because, among friends, one can always pick up points of criticism.
I echo my hon. Friend the Minister's point that, during the last few years, this Government's investment in British Rail has been significant. What is being done now has been talked about for years. The east coast main line electrification project is the largest single project for 25 years. Twenty-five years ago we had a Conservative Government. I do not know what Labour Governments have done between that time and this. We had a debate earlier this evening about Manchester. Joining the railway systems to the north and south of Manchester has been dreamed of, talked of and written about for well over 100 years. But that is happening now; the finance has been approved and the project is under construction.
Money is not always the answer to a problem. Can one honestly say that the savings in operating costs on British Airways in the last few years have resulted in the airline being less efficient than it was a few years ago?
As for the south-eastern network and "socially necessary services", this country badly needs more investment. It is amazing that we have had to fight so hard for Manchester airport. I am delighted that at last the scheme is to go ahead. In terms of the national interest, it is scandalous that we even contemplated building an airport, with a railway line to it, yet again in the prosperous south-east when we have had to fight so hard to obtain a railway link for Manchester airport.
As for the Heathrow link, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look seriously at the link from the Great Western railway line at Iver to the South Western railway line at Feltham? Almost all of it would be in tunnel. That link is absolutely essential if we are to maximise railway traffic to and from the airport and to alleviate the appalling traffic jams that are a feature of everyday life now on the M4 motorway. What is more, it will get out of control if terminal 5 is built. When assessing the balance sheet of a rail link to Heathrow, we must take account of the enormous costs of the constant congestion of airport-bound traffic on the motorway, because there is no adequate rail link, which will increase.
I want to concentrate on what I describe as a fair appreciation of the railway in society. We have only to imagine what British cities would be like without a railway system to realise that their absence is a proposition that we cannot contemplate. My critical comments, if they be so, of the Government's latest proposals and the letter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent to Sir Robert Reid, will be concentrated on commuter services.
Commuter services are essentially unprofitable. Running a rail service for one hour at each end of the day and empty trains for the rest of the day on tracks that have to be maintained and signalled will self-evidently not lend itself to profitable operation. They are truly the socially essential services. It is not always recognised that, if we insisted that BR ran only its profitable services, it would abolish the commuter services tomorrow. It provides those services because they are essential for our environment.
The more that BR succeeds in bringing people onto the trains for commuter services to London, the more money it will lose. What is the logic, therefore, of applying commercial criteria to reach an objective that we all want when that objective will add to, rather than reduce, the losses involved?
I wish that, when we talk of Network SouthEast and commuter services to London and other cities, we remembered that they will never be profitable and that success could end up costing us more money rather than saving it. Applying commercial criteria to commuter services is unreasonable and unsound.
As for what differentiates between road and rail travel, I shall not weary the House by reading what Sir Robert Reid said in his annual report about safety, but the safety record of our railways is one of which we can be proud. We in Parliament, have for 150 years laid down stringent safety requirements on the railways. Perhaps that is why we expect so much of them. On the roads, however, "only" 5,200 people were killed last year. We were told that that was a good year.
Why do we have headlines and a demand for a private notice question whenever there is a rail accident? There is slaughter on the roads each day, but nobody says anything about it. If passenger-carrying traffic on the roads was forced to abide by the same safety standards that successive Governments have laid down for the railways, British Rail would be turned into one of the world's most profitable organisations overnight.
I do not know why we demand of the railways a signalling system and a given distance between all trains, but impose no similar rules for roads. Why do we accept an almost non-existent level of safety on the roads as compared with the railways? Such demands are exceedingly expensive.
The hire and reward rules for the road passenger transport industry are virtually non-existent when it comes to safety as compared with the rules we lay down for the railways.
Why do we do nothing to prevent coaches on motorways travelling on the outside lane, bullying and shoving people off the road, yet we will not allow a lorryload of bananas to go in that same lane? Are we more concerned about the welfare of bananas than we are about human beings? That is one of the many anomalies which is part of the farce of the history of the comparison between rail and road transport in Britain.
British Rail has to pay for all its track costs. Yet, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East rightly said, the passenger transport and freight industry on the roads do no such thing. The bills for road transport are automatically picked by the taxpayer. I could go on indefinitely.
A few weeks ago I tabled a written question about level crossings. Every year, the railway industry has to pay millions of pounds for allowing roads the privilege of crossing its railway tracks. What is the sense of that? Why should the railways always pay these costs? If there is an accident at an automatic level crossing, we do not talk about the idiotic driver who tried to dash across when the red light was flashing and caused an accident; we immediately demand an inquiry to decide whether the equipment is working properly. It is assumed that mechanical failures are automatic on the railways, whereas human failures are non-existent on the roads.
British Rail must pay for all its own police—£30 million a year. When there are accidents or traffic jams on the roads, the police are called and the taxpayer pays.
Tomorrow, the final section of what will be the largest car park in Britain will be opened—the M25. When Sir Robert Reid and I were discussing comparisons between road and rail he asked, partially in jest, what people would

say if he said that he did not want to go on paying for the stations—all the rents and rates—and had decided that, as from next week, all trains would be parked at Piccadilly Circus. To say such a thing illustrates that the costs of stations, signalling, track, and the police are all borne by British Rail out of its operating finances yet the taxpayer funds the roads.
The BR annual report for 1985–86. shows that track costs were £456 million, yet all the equivalent track costs on the roads are borne by the taxpayer. Signalling cost £119 million yet we can be sure that the Bus and Coach Council does not pay anything towards traffic lights. Stations cost £239 million and the police cost £30 million. Those four items alone cost British Rail £844 million in the financial year 1985–86. To those costs must be added 40 ancient monuments for which British Rail is responsible, 700 listed buildings, 80 sites of special scientific interest and 600 conservation areas. These are all costs which the railway is called upon to pay. Who can say that such things as ancient monuments are part of running a railway and should be subject to commercial criteria?
No, at the moment, if there is not a fare deal for the customers because there is not a fair deal for the railway.
I pay tribute to the Ministers for sitting here and listening to this as I am sure it is wearying to listen to what I have said so often. The Department of Transport should have a thorough review of the true social comparison to the taxpayer and to the nation of road versus rail. There should be a true and fair comparison between passenger transport for hire and reward on the roads and passenger transport for hire and reward on the railways.
If we do not fund the railways and maintain an efficient railway system, and if we fail to attract customers to it, all that we shall do in the long run is increase pollution, congestion and stagnation. I am sure that no hon. Member wants that.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), whose knowledge of and support for the railways I greatly admire. As a boy—I am a hit older than him—I went into Paddington station in 1938, and I remember seeing the banner across the entrance which said, "A square deal for the railways." That was before nationalisation, when the railways were feeling hard done by because of what the Government were doing to them in those days. I still believe that the railways deserve a square deal.
It is late, and I shall not harangue the Government too much about the railways, although I hope that in the new Session they will give us time to debate public transport generally. This is rather a luxury for me, because I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport and only this evening we were questioning representatives of the British Railways Board on the present position of the railways and on their reaction to the Secretary of State's announcement that the public service obligation would be reduced by about £150 million. Sir Robert Reid seems to believe that he can live with it, but I wonder whether that is so.
I hope that the Minister will not accuse me of knocking the railways. I accept that there have been significant improvements in recent years, especially north of London. For that, we should congratulate the management and work force of British Rail. They have done a great job. The staff of the railways are now down to 140,000 and an entire


tier of management has disappeared. Indeed, there is a shortage of about 10,000 people. It is difficult to recruit some of the staff needed, especially guards in the London area. Presumably that is due to unsocial hours—at least that was the answer given to us this evening—

Mr. Snape: It is the rotten wages.

Mr. Ross: I accept entirely that low wages are a factor. But stations are more pleasant places to visit, as anyone who goes to Waterloo and Victoria can see, or to be stranded in. It is even more pleasant at Portsmouth harbour station. Trains are slowly becoming cleaner. Station managers turn out to be human beings. I have been trying to find the station manager at Portsmouth for 12 years, but now there is a poster at the station, with his photograph, telling us who he is. He is doing jolly well. They show their faces and they have open days. The public are coming in. Catering has improved dramatically, and some private catering has been introduced. Patronage of the railways is up by 3 per cent.
I agree with the Minister that there is a good story to tell, but I have some fears for the future. There is a risk that the Government will force the railways into overpricing the fares, which will have the effect of killing the golden goose—the commuters. There is a point at which they will take no more. I can give an illustration of that. There are not many wealthy people on the Isle of Wight—I am certainly not—

Mr. Snape: Oh!

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should see my bank manager. However, I knew some people who travelled first class to London—I dare say that the Under-Secretary of State will know some of them—but when British Rail withdrew the first-class day return—incidentally, it was not withdrawn on the western region — those people refused to pay £30 for the full first-class return to London, so they travelled second class. I understand that Sir Robert Reid has attracted most of those people back, but if British Rail hikes up the fares yet again, they will not return a second time, but the railways will be forced to do that.
The fares structure on Network SouthEast, especially south of London, will cause many people to ask themselves, "Can we afford to go on paying this?" With the big bang there is a great deal of money around in the City, but when life gets a little more difficult for some of those people, the first thing that they will lose is their first-class travel. Then they will look to coaches, which will be competitive, although they will take a long time to come in because of the congestion in London. They may get up that half hour earlier in the morning and come in by car. That cannot make any sense.
Secondly, the rolling stock south of London leaves much to be desired. The Minister said that there would be new rolling stock on the Southampton-Weymouth line, and it is about time. The other day I travelled from Southampton on an eight-coach train, and that is the first time that I have seen that. That is presumably due to lack of rolling stock, and it is leading to overcrowding. We are constantly getting that on the Portsmouth line, and we are not getting any new stock on that line. I wrote to Chris Green the other day, saying that it was unfair to expect

people to pay such high fares and travel strap-hanging all the way from Havant to London, which happens all the time.
Moreover, if one travels from some of the London stations, such as Charing Cross or Cannon Street, one still has to use the old-type coaches with no corridor. Women in particular do not feel easy travelling in such coaches, and I do not blame them. Often, they run late at night. The cuts will mean a delay in replacing some of that rolling stock, and that point must be put to the Minister.
Some excellent schemes, such as Capitalcard, have been introduced, and I understand that there will now he a network card, which have helped to increase the number of travelling public. I hope that such schemes are here to stay and there will not be too much of a hike-up in the cost of them. It is made clear in the Secretary of State's letter to Sir Robert Reid that the cuts may lead to the closure of some branch lines, when we should be considering reopening some freight lines. I am thinking in particular of the Oxford to Bletchley line, on which there have been one or two trial trains. I am sure that that would work out. One could name others.
Sir Robert Reid told us in evidence that he cannot make Inter-City profitable by 1989 and that he will have to borrow to make up the shortage. That is too exacting a restriction to put on BR at this time.
Because of the lengthy procedure of closure BR sometimes thinks again, as in the case of Marylebone, which it realised it could not shut. The plans to close it were withdrawn because the numbers of passengers were increasing, and the Underground could not take them. I hope that we shall see Marylebone develop so that there will be more and better services, particularly to the Wembley area.
We cannot press the Minister for a decision on the Settle to Carlisle line, but we hope that he will make the right decision, particularly with a general election coming up, and the fact that quite a number of Tory seats are in that part of the world. I travelled on the line in early October and the train was crowded, because at long last BR has had the sense to promote and develop the line, with the permission of local authorities, so that small stations can be opened. It is making a profit, but BR still wants to shut it. I find that unbelievably stupid.
This is an overcrowded country, where the traffic on our roads continues to increase dramatically and a vast and expensive ring road is quickly choked. I have in mind the M25, to which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) referred. Traffic congestion is a fact of life in almost every town of any size, including Newport, Isle of Wight, where there are four or five-mile queues in the summer to get into the town along its one or two approach roads. Any restriction on investment in the railways makes no sense.

Mr. David Mitchell: Where is the hon. Gentleman getting the idea from that there are any restrictions on investment in the railways? I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I welcome proposals from BR for viable and good investment. The hon. Gentleman is misleading himself if he believes that we are proposing cuts in investment.

Mr. Ross: I am the first to congratulate the Government on the improvement in the capital programmes which they have initiated in the past couple of years on, for example, the east coast main line, the


Hastings line and the Bournemouth-Weymouth line, but the board has to pay the interest. At the end of the day, does it not come back to the total amount that British Rail has to spend? I assume that it does. The board surely has to look at its finances before it sets up schemes. It must know what the improvements will cost.
I very much welcome what has happened. I am not knocking it, but surely any restriction must be detrimental to the movement of people. I agree with the Government that we want an efficient, value-for-money rail network, but if it is to succeed it must be able to price its services within the means of the average person. I say to the Government, "Please beware. Do not press your demands too far. In recent years the railways have responded nobly, but they need a carrot or two to help them to maintain that momentum."

Mr. Roger Sims: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and to last week's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I listened with particular interest to the references to Network SouthEast and the likelihood of fare increases as a result of my right hon. Friend's announcement. For reasons which I understand, neither Minister was prepared to be specific, but clearly some of the comments about 25 per cent. increases were gross exaggerations. There is no question of there being such increases. However, I am suspicious about possible fare increases in Network SouthEast above the rate of inflation. Any such increases would be less than popular in my commuter constituency. I put it no higher than that. I cannot quarrel, however, with the aim of reducing the substantial taxpayers' subsidy of these services.
Any increase would be easier to bear if it were matched by a better service. I was pleased to see several references to that in the letter sent by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the chairman of British Rail. The letter stated:
You and your Board need to offer your customers an efficient railway providing good value for money.
Well said. My right hon. Friend referred to the need
to improve the service to the customer",
and to
improvements in quality of service".
He said:
I particularly welcome the new efforts to ensure that the London commuter services are reliable, attractive and punctual."—[Official Report, 21 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 772–3.]
Frankly, my right hon. Friend and, especially, the chairman of British Rail have some way to go in each respect.
As for attractiveness, the new and refurbished rolling stock and the new livery are attractive, but, alas, they seem to make the older stock appear even dirtier. Some carriages are filthy, externally and internally. Of course, the internal mess is caused not by British Rail but by the customers. I appreciate BR's difficulties in cleaning carriages when there is a quick turn-round at the terminals. Nevertheless, if there are to be higher fares, passengers should not have to try several carriages before finding one free from rubbish and graffiti.
In recent years, there has been an improvement in punctuality, but there are still far too many delays. My hon. Friend the Minister cited 90 per cent. as a reasonable target but if 90 per cent. of services are on time, that is an

admission that 10 per cent. of services are more than five minutes late; and that is on some runs of only 30 or 40 minutes. That is not good enough.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sims: Time is very limited and other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind if I do not give way.
The commuter services in my area simply are not good enough. There are far too many cancellations inside arid outside the rush hours. In a constituency such as mine —a commuter area—business and social life are based upon the railway. People catch the 8·45 to he in the office by 9·30. If they find it cancelled and have 15 minutes to wait, it is, to put it no higher, very frustrating. Will they have to catch an earlier train the next day in case the train that they rely on does not run? That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
If trains are cancelled outside the rush hour, that can mean a wait of half an hour or more and people will be late for their appoinments. I am speaking not from hearsay but from my own experience. It is many years now since my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I commuted together on the same train. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. But I still commute daily, except, perhaps I should add, on days when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House seeks to put on business of this character at this hour. However, I must avoid the temptation of dealing with some of the work being done by the Select Committee on Procedure on such issues.
Why must we have such cancellations on commuter services? The timetables have been carefully worked out. Those who organise things know exactly what services and staff are required. After all these years, the excuse of staff shortages is beginning to wear rather thin.
The letter to which I referred talked about the London commuter services being reliable, attractive and punctual, but if Network SouthEast is to put up fares over and above the rate of inflation, my constituents and I will expect those words to be translated into deeds.

Mr. Richard Caborn: It has been interesting to hear the Minister's exposition on expenditure this evening, but I notice that he has not mentioned the Midland line, which runs from St. Pancras to Sheffield. I hope that that will be given some consideration in any BR expenditure.
My main reason for intervening this evening is to ask the Minister whether serious consideration is now being given to the rail network, in particular for freight, with regard to the Channel tunnel. In the north of England we were concerned about the development of the Channel tunnel, but we are now viewing it positively.
We are hoping that the Government will look favourably on some type of inland customs clearance. I am talking, in particular, of Sheffield. Within the rail infrastructure we now have a fairly dormant three-and-ahalf mile stretch alongside the MI called the Tinsley area which is a major freight terminal, probably one of the most modern in the 1960s, but which, unfortunately, never realised its potential.
If BR looks positively to the future, that freight yard now has potential. The local authority, along with the chamber of commerce, the trade unions and other


interested parties, have commissioned a survey to look at the feasibility of developing an inland customs clearance, not just because of that freight terminal, but because of all the infrastructure, both road and rail, which lead to and from that area.
I hope that during the next three years, when BR is being developed, the Minister will prevail on it to look at the difference between the north and south in terms of economic development. I go further and say that, unless that type of development takes place with the advent of the Channel tunnel, many industrialists say that they will not be able to afford to invest in the south-east because it is so expensive and therefore their port of call may be northern France. Therefore, it is now important to have the type of rail infrastructure that many of the areas in the north are talking about which can be brought into play.
We must involve not just BR but the Department of Transport and Her Majesty's customs as well. They must be co-ordinated and the idea treated sympathetically. If that is done, I am fairly convinced that there can be some regeneration of the industrial north by effectively bringing the Channel tunnel entrance into the centre of south Yorkshire in the way that I have described. I hope that the Minister's reply will be favourable. I am asking not for a definitive answer, but for at least some words of encouragement this evening.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister spoke of prejudiced critics. I hope that he will forgive my lack of modesty if I say that I like to see myself as a fair and dispassionate critic. I am also a keen supporter of the railway system both north and south of the border.
I am a regular passenger on the Glasgow central to Euston service, which has approximately eight trains a day. I am happy to say that I much prefer that mode of transport to the Glasgow to Heathrow shuttle. It is much more civilised to travel down from Scotland by train, and it gives me a chance to read as well. However, there are problems with the service north and south of the border. When will the Sprinters and Pacers that the Minister mentioned come to ScotRail, and in particular, to the west of Scotland? In the west of Scotland it is feared that passengers may have to travel to London by way of the fair city of Edinburgh. That is not a complaint against Edinburgh, but the Glasgow-to-Euston service is very important to people.
The Minister's reply to my earlier intervention was, to say the least, unsatisfactory. It was staggering that he should refer to alternative routes. Glasgow is important in its own right, as are the towns that surround it. The Minister also referred to the improvements made to the decor of, and services in, our railway stations. But stations in my constituency leave much to be desired. For example, it is difficult for the elderly, blind, and disabled, or for young mothers with children to get into the Port Glasgow station. The provision of lavatories and waiting rooms in the stations in my constituency is a disgrace, particularly at Greenock central station.
I feel deeply sorry for passengers and staff on ScotRail, who travel to and from stations in my constituency.
As the Minister rightly emphasised, passenger safety is an important issue. Recently, I had to protest to the

general manager of ScotRail about near-accidents involving young mothers with children in prams or baby carriages, who have been trapped between automatically closing doors. That has happened several times in my constituency, and there is a danger that there will be a serious accident. One of the factors involved is the absence of guards on those trains.
I have great faith in Mr. Cornell, the general manager of ScotRail, and his employees. I also had great faith in his predecessor, Mr. Green, who is now, I believe, in this part of the world. Despite all the problems that bedevil those people, they attempt to provide a first-class service with very limited resources. North of the border the rolling-stock is, with the exception of the two Inter-City services, dilapidated. That is a disgrace and it harms our tourist industry. Foreigners travelling to Inverness, Aberdeen or Perth have to travel on pretty shabby rolling stock. Both domestic and foreign passengers deserve a much better service. The same is true of the staff of Scot Rail, who are unfailingly courteous and helpful to their passengers. I am sorry that they do not receive the service that they deserve from the Government. British Rail and ScotRail are underfunded compared with railways in many other European countries. I regret that deeply.
I bring the Minister back to the important question of the Glasgow-Euston service. The passengers who use that service deserve a straightforward answer about the press speculation surrounding its continuance.

Mr. David Mitchell: We have had an interesting debate. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that if British Rail cannot meet the quality objectives now, how can it be expected to do so with a reduction in the PSO. He was referring to Network SouthEast. The PSO reduction for Network SouthEast and provincial is based on a reduction of 4 per cent. over three years. There is hardly a business in the land which cannot improve its efficiency by 4 per cent. over three years. The chairman of British Rail has accepted it as a financial target consistent with achieving the quality targets.
The hon. Gentleman referred to criticism about overcrowding. On some routes the peak capacity does not allow for sufficient numbers of trains to be squeezed in to enable people to be carried without overcrowding. On certain routes the numbers of people who want to be carried are greater than can be provided with seats because we cannot squeeze in extra trains in the peak hours. It is possible at other times, but not at peak hours. For that reason there will be some standing in excess of British Rail's target.
The hon. Gentleman asserted that British Rail had rejected profitable freight traffic. That is not true. If he has an example of that 1 hope that he will write to me about it, because I should like to take it up with the board. He then asserted that there was a flight of passengers from commuter trains. That is a flight of the hon. Gentleman's imagination, because passenger demand has been increasing on the commuter network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) referred rightly to British Rail's substantial progress and to the effects of investment approval by the Government for the east coast main line—the biggest investment project for 25 years—and for the Windsor


link, a 100-year-old dream coming true. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising these massive investment trends.
My hon. Friend asked me about the Heathrow links. We are appraising the various alternatives and we shall return to that subject. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the British Transport police, who are rarely referred to in the House. Quietly, efficiently and competently, they do a tremendous job on behalf of the travelling public. My hon. Friend suggested that rail users paid for their track costs, whereas road users do not. In taxation and fuel duty, road users do pay for their track costs.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) constructively asked a number of questions and suggested that fares were likely to go up so much that people would stop using the trains. Our expectation is that the pattern of fare increases in the next three years will not be very different from that over the past three years, and the pattern has not had the effect that the hon. Gentleman fears.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst (Mr. Sims) talked about train washing, cleanliness within trains and train cancellations. On Network SouthEast the target is that each train is washed every 24 hours. That target has not been achieved, but so far this year there has been an increase from 70 per cent. of trains being washed every day to 88 per cent. That is progress in the right direction, and that should be recognised. Four-weekly interior cleaning has increased from 71 to 77 per cent. Improvements are clearly discernible for those who are regular users.
I agree with my hon. Friend that train cancellations are one of the most exasperating events that can befall a commuter, and we must ensure that we do everything that we can to help British Rail improve on that score. Its target for Network SouthEast is 98·5 per cent. of all trains running. The latest figures that I have tell me that 98·3 per cent"as been achieved. That is below the figure that should apply, but British Rail is seeking to improve on that.
One of the difficulties lies with guards. Where there are driver-only operations, there is a far greater standard of reliability. Instead of waiting for two people to turn up a service can be provided with only the driver. Progress has been made, but I accept that a great deal more has to be done.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) talked about the St. Pancras-Sheffield service. Inter-city trains have been introduced and the service has been made substantially faster. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give credit to British Rail for what has been achieved. I agree with him about the desirability of a network of inland clearance depots that are linked to the Channel tunnel. That is a way in which British Rail can secure for the north of England substantial advantages in being able to compete successfully for exporters delivering their exports to the continental markets and—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft British Railways Board (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.

Crime Prevention

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Greville Janner: I have the opportunity to raise the problems of crime prevention and the need to warn citizens not to admit strangers into their homes without full identification. At the same time I refer to the problems of crime which are growing throughout the country, not least in Leicester and Leicestershire, and the need to combat crime by adding to the resources of police forces and providing full information to and obtaining full information from the public.
The Government's failure to deal with crime is best illustrated by figures that show that there has been a 55 per cent. increase in crime in Leicestershire since the Government came to power. This means that one reported crime is committed every 11 minutes. Of these crimes, 2,105 are crimes of violence against the person, which have also increased by 55 per cent. since 1978 and are now taking place once every four hours. There were 10,042 burglaries in 1985, an increase of 62 per cent. They are taking place now at the rate of one every 52 minutes. Some of the nastiest, meanest, shabbiest and most disgraceful crimes are those committed against the elderly in their own homes.
I have a sheaf of cuttings from the Leicester Mercury about offences against the elderly. I pay tribute to the Leicester Mercury for its persistence and the accuracy of its reporting in this sphere, and for the help which it has kindly given me in the preparation of material for the debate. I shall quote a few of the cases, all typical. One story reads:
Police were yesterday called to the home of an 81-yearold Leicester woman who had been living in silence and fear since she was assaulted and robbed a week ago. The woman, who lives alone, was attacked last Wednesday when she opened her door to a youth.
Another story headed, "Woman, 72, conned" reads:
Two teenage tricksters conned their way into the home of a 72-year-old Braunstone woman and stole £70. The couple called at the woman's home in Medwell Road posing as officials from the local Water Authority.
Next:
A con man tricked his way into the home of an 86-yearold Leicester woman and stole £85 last night.
An item headed "Theft" reads:
At 5 pm in Doncaster Road on Wednesday—it was his third attempt in 24 hours—a man tricked his way into the home of an 82-year-old woman and 10 minutes later repeated the trick on an 86-year-old woman.
Another headline:
Cruel thief cons widow—for £30.
The story reads:
A thief conned an 87-year-old Braunstone widow … produced City Council identification and claimed he was making a New Year check of her lighting.
Yet another story:
Conmen preying on pensioners stole more than £400 in five separate incidents.
So the stories go on. "Man attacked for £74" reads a headline, and others say,
Robber threatens woman in own home
and
Youth robs woman, 72, of £100".
In every case there is the nastiness and evil of people making attacks on the elderly, not merely in their own


homes so as to take money from them at the time, but putting them in a state of fear from which many of them do not recover.
Man plundered the old gets five years jail
states a headline, and the story reads:
A 23-year-old was convicted of tricking his way into pensioners' homes.
Then there are stories of charity frauds, with people posing as charity collectors. One story tells of a con man who tricked a woman by convincing her that he had come to mend the roof, and he stole £65. An article tells of the way in which the Severn-Trent water authority warned householders to guard against con men posing as officials.
Tricksters steals £500 from man, 78
declares another headline, and the story reads:
Hinckley police are investigating two reports of bogus callers preying on old people.
Another headline declares:
Elderly fall prey to teen con gang.
I have pages of cuttings of the same wickedness and evil, all committed in recent months and all in the city part of which I am privileged to represent.
This morning I called on a constituent, a man in his early forties but looking much older. He is disabled, suffering from epilepsy. Some time ago his wife answered a knock on the door to see a neighbour standing there, and immediately two young men rushed in and beat her up. The man, because of his disability, could not help to rescue her. The men raided the house in search of money, but there was none. They were caught and convicted.
How can we deal with this kind of filthy crime? We could start by increasing the resources available to the police. I pay tribute to the work of community policemen throughout the country, by policemen on the beat to whom the elderly and others can turn. We have many complaints against the police and complaints about the way in which complaints are dealt with by police forces. Like all other groups of people, there are good and bad among them. But the good are very good and they should be strengthened.
At a time when crime has increased so much, it is wrong that police forces should still be starved of the resources they need. The Government rightly say that they are recruiting more policemen, but under Conservative rule the crime rate has increased so greatly that those increases are insufficient.
When Leicester police ask for more men and women to be on the beat and the request is turned down, we must all worry. I pay my respects to Mr. Goodson, the previous chief constable of Leicestershire, for the work he did, and I regret that he did not receive the resources that he needed. I pay tribute to our new chief constable, Mr. Michael Hirst, and I hope that when he asks for help he will receive it, because it will not be for himself but for the people who live in the city and who are afraid to go out at night.
It will be for the people who are afraid even in what should he the safety of their own homes, their castles — the places where they should feel secure, but they are not. We should provide the resources that the police need, and they should be enabled to help citizens to live in the shelter of their own homes and cities without fear.
Unfortunately, that is not happening, and nor would it be enough. In addition, it is vital that people should be warned not to allow strangers into their home without full

and proper identification. Even with identification, they may still run into trouble. If there is any doubt, people should be helped and encouraged to inquire before anyone is allowed into their home.
One of the tragedies which have occurred under this Government is the removal of resources in servicing elderly people — for example, by providing them with telephones so they can get through to others. I understand that Age Concern is promoting a number of schemes to help elderly people to make their houses burglar-proof. It is providing advice for old-age pensioners, crime alert cards and cards which advise on safe ways to deal with callers which can be attached to the inside of doors. Public information campaigns are run not only by Age Concern, which is a wonderful organisation that deserves the support of all hon. Members, but by the Leicester city council.
There is a lack of overall co-ordination from the centre. There are no national policies. Some areas have no policy at all. Many districts could take advice from what has been learnt in other areas. I call on the Government to produce an overall plan for coping with the spread of crime, of attacks, of violence and of theft from people in their own homes, and not to rely, as they have done too much, on the voluntary effort of organisations of which Age Concern is only one.
There is room for help by organisations such as the Leicester Victims of Crime organisation, which is run by Mr. Maurice Jones and his colleagues, which do their best to give elderly people a greater perception of danger, leading to proper care and not merely to greater fear. Elderly people should have the advantage of advanced technology, such as emergency telephone systems and apparatus that can be hung around their necks, for example, enabling them to give warnings of dangers which they fear to others.
It is not enough simply to praise and to prompt. There is a profound need for action. There are not enough statistics. We do not know, for example, how many attacks are made by people on others in their homes. We do not have the statistics because there is no breakdown. 1 call on the Government to produce such figures. 1 understand that the Home Office expenditure on crime prevention publicity this year will total about £2·5 million. The fact that it is failing is shown all too clearly by the increases in crime. I appreciate that part of that is due not to the police, policing or crime prevention publicity but simply to the enormous miseries of boredom created by unemployment, young people not having adequate facilities and the general malaise of the disadvantaged which afflicts our country.
Dealing specifically with the problem that is before the House, I hope that in his answer the Minister will give the country some hope of positive steps designed to help people to cope, and that he will pay heed to the recommendations made by constabularies such as Leicestershire for more resources when they are needed. Perhaps we shall cease to be afflicted by the constant reports of mean, nasty, scurrilous and evil tricking of elderly people in their own homes. Perhaps some of the very small minority of people who commit such a crime will think how they would feel if the behaviour that they direct against others were inflicted on them when they get old, so that they may take heed of those miseries and avoid them for the future.
It is a very sad world in which we have to ask the House and the Government to take note of such a crime so late at night, but if note is taken, and if the Government take the action that is needed, perhaps the morning will be happier for many elderly people than it will be tomorrow, and not so many will be attacked during a long and unhappy night.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Much as I happen to like the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), I have to say that his speech tonight has displayed a basic ignorance of some of the essential facts, which I find rather alarming, especially as it comes from an hon. and learned Gentleman who has a position of some distinction in his party. During his speech, he used several of the fairly standard phrases that we hear from Opposition Benches. He said that the Government have failed to deal with crime.

Mr. Janner: True.

Mr. Hogg: We shall come to that in a moment.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government should start to increase the resources available to the police, and the premise that underlay his comments was that the Government had somehow failed—

Mr. Janner: They have.

Mr. Hogg: They have not. His premise was that the Government had somehow failed to honour their pledge to the community on law and order. As I said, that demonstrates an ignorance of the facts that I find somewhat alarming.
Therefore, before I refer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's specific comments, I shall tell him something about the basic facts. Let us begin with expenditure. The Government are now spending over 38 per cent. more in real terms than in 1979. The manpower available to the police has increased by around 15,000 men over 1979, around 10,000 more police officers, the balance being civilians. So, pausing for a moment, what we have seen is an increase in expenditure of around 38 per cent. in real terms since 1979, more than any other increase in any other spending budget. That is a remarkable increase in dedication of resources. It has to be taken into account with the other demands on resources, because the hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to say, "More teachers." He would be the first to say, "More doctors." He would be the first to say, "More dentists," and so on and so forth. Spending on law and order, vital as it is, has to be weighed in a series of priorities as between spending Departments. There is no doubt that spending on law and order has increased much more dramatically than in any other area. That is a fact from which the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot depart. He would like to concentrate rather more resources on the giving of advice, and here I am inclined to agree with him because crime prevention is one of the most promising areas in which to seek to combat crime.
Crimes of violence attract the greatest publicity, but in reality crimes against property are by far the most numerous. Some 95 per cent. of all crime is crime against property and of this figure around 13 per cent. constitutes burglary of residential property. One can express these

percentages in figures. In 1985, nearly 460,000 burglaries were recorded by the police. The best view is that something like the same number go unrecorded. We are talking about a large number of offences against residential property. The interesting thing about this is that a large number of these offences are essentially opportunist.
From an analysis of the figures it seems that about 25 per cent. of burglaries are effected without forced entry of the premises. That tells us that to a considerable extent these are opportunist crimes. People leave windows ajar or doors unlocked or leave keys in locks and somebody comes along and takes advantage of the situation. Opportunist crimes are precisely the type of offences against which householders can guard. It is therefore an area in which Government and institutions of society can and should give positive advice. That is precisely what the Government are seeking to do, because we have organised and concerted a coherent crime prevention programme. The first instrument of this programme is necessarily publicity. We must mount and maintain a publicity campaign designed to warn and advise.
Publicity campaigns can raise the level of public awareness and can give good and practical advice. In the current year we will spend approximately £2·5 million on crime prevention publicity. The most noticeable aspect of that is the magpie campaign. It is directed primarily against burglary and auto crime. It has covered the north of England, the midlands, London and the home counties. It has comprised, as was necessary, a television advertising campaign backed by local press articles, posters and over 11 million leaflets. It was perhaps an object lesson in the kind of campaign that Governments can run. It alerted the public, was simple to understand and gave clear and unequivocal advice.
Inevitably, the Government's activity in this area must go far beyond mere advertising and we do much more than that. At the heart of the Government's programme of crime prevention is the standing conference, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, has set up a number of working parties which will investigate, report on and advise upon various aspects of criminal behaviour. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that the working party group on residential burglary which is chaired by one of our colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) is due to report in the middle of November.
My view — it is probably the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, too—is that if crime prevention is to be successful, it has to be local; it has to identify itself with the area with which it is concerned. Therefore, the Government are placing enormous emphasis upon crime prevention panels and neighbourhood watch schemes. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that Leicester has had very good experience of both. I congratulate the crime prevention panel in Leicester upon having organised the concert that was held in December 1985 in the De Montfort hall. About 2,500 elderly people gathered at that concert, where they were reminded of a whole variety of crime prevention methods. It was a considerable success.
The neighbourhood watch schemes have also proved remarkably successful. In the hon. and learned Gentleman's own county, there are about 40 neighbourhood watch schemes. Crime prevention panels and neighbourhood watch schemes provide a framework and


a mechanism whereby we can give advice, help and guidance. But we can do more than that. We are also making use of the community programme. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know what the Government have in mind. Very substantial sums of money are already dedicated to the community programme. By this method the long-term unemployed can be involved in the important task of assisting those who are most vulnerable in society to make their homes more secure and at the same time giving them reassurance.
I shall give two examples. The hon. and learned Gentleman will probably know both. Since 1983, Age Concern has organised a project within the community programme agency in Avon, which involves 1,200 people. They are involved in the task of protecting property, especially the property of the aged. Property has been marked and advice and reassurance have been given. In the hon. and learned Gentleman's own city of Leicester there is a similar pattern. For many years, Age Concern in Leicester has been offering advice to elderly people on crime prevention. In recent years, it has established a community-funded programme to fit locks and other security devices to the homes of the elderly and to repair damage caused to the property of the elderly through burglary.
The Government have a coherent crime prevention programme. Of course we place great emphasis on giving advice. We use the neighbourhood watch schemes, advertising and crime prevention. But we go further than that. Through the medium of the community programme, we are providing practical help for those who need it most —the elderly and the vulnerable.
It is inevitable that I have referred largely to the work done by the Government through the agency of Government-sponsored organisations. However, many other groups and organisations are involved in precisely the kind of ventures that have been commended to us by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Sometimes they are voluntary organisations; sometimes they are commercial organisations; and sometimes they are specialist organisations.
I pay tribute to Help the Aged. Last month it published a pamphlet entitled "Be Safe." The elderly were given

advice about the kind of measures that they should take to protect themselves and their property. Sometimes it can be done by Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman will probably know of the publication entitled "Knock, Knock, Who's There?" It is designed to warn the elderly about the dangers of con men, tricksters and bogus officials—precisely the kind of individuals to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. He might know rather a lot about that publication as, following a spate of incidents in Leicester involving confidence men and tricksters, about 100,000 copies of the leaflets were handed out through the good offices of the social services department, for which I am extremely grateful.
There are the more sophisticated projects such as the "Stop Thief" video produced by the Prudential and the home security video to be produced by the Halifax building society. Examples can be piled one on the other.
Much crime, especially crime against property, is avoidable. Much of the anxiety experienced by the elderly can be lessened. The hon. and learned Member is quite right to emphasise the need for advice, guidance and assistance. The Government have that precisely in mind. That is why we have mounted, conducted and orchestrated the most coherent crime prevention programme contemplated by any Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong when he tries to pretend that the Government have not dedicated resources to the police and law and order. No previous Government have increased spending on the police as much as we.

Mr. Janner: And you have failed.

Mr. Hogg: No, we have not failed. We must ask ourselves why crime has increased, and I will give the hon. and learned Member one of the reasons. Many of his friends and colleagues—but not him—have spent far too much time here and elsewhere undermining the moral authority of the state and the moral basis of society. If people go about chipping away at the moral basis of society and trying to pretend that people have entitlement—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at three minutes to One o'clock.